With the Western-rite largely confined to the Antiochian Self-Ruled in the US and to ROCOR with very small presences under other Slavic Churches, could someone from a Greek Orthodox perspective explain the response of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the large Churches under the EC in the US, Australia and elsewhere?

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

With the Western-rite largely confined to the Antiochian Self-Ruled in the US and to ROCOR with very small presences under other Slavic Churches, could someone from a Greek Orthodox perspective explain the response of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the large Churches under the EC in the US, Australia and elsewhere?

Quote

From the Diocesan News for Clergy and Laity, February 1995, Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople)

Editorial note: This short piece, while containing some incorrect information, is presented on WesternOrthodox.com to show that not all bishops and clergy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) hold the same unfavourable views on the Antiochian Western Rite that Greek Orthodox Bishop Anthony of San Francisco does.

As Western Christians become increasingly concerned by the drift of their denominations away from traditional Christian theology and liturgical practice, many have returned to Orthodoxy. Most become parishioners at existing parishes, but some have also brought into Orthodoxy their rite—or style of worship—and established new parishes.

Among the jurisdictions represented by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA) Western Rite parishes are at present only in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America.

Nonetheless, Western Rite parishes of the Antiochian Archdiocese are in full canonical unity with other Orthodox parishes and Churches in the U.S. and throughout the world.

It should be noted that the Western Rite liturgical services are both Western (as opposed to Eastern or Byzantine) and Orthodox. When the Western—or Roman—Church separated from the first millenium of Orthodox unity in 1054, those Western Rites then extant were lost from the Orthodox Church.

This condition continued into the nineteenth century when some Western Christians approached the Orthodox Church after the 1870 promulgation by the Roman Catholic Church of the dogma of papal infallibility. During the same period some Protestant Christians, notably from the Anglican Communion, sought a return to the true episcopal character of the Church and the restoration of its sacramental nature.

At the turn of the century, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church approved a corrected version of the Western Rite Liturgy, based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. In part, the effort to examine, correct, and bless this rite was led by Archbishop Tikhon of North America, who in 1917 would become Patriarch of Moscow and later would be martyred by the Soviet Communist government.

At present there are two forms 0f the Western Rite in use within the Antiochian Archdiocese, both derivative forms of the ancient Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great. To modern Western Christians these rites will seem very similar to the Tridentine Roman Catholic Mass and to the Episcopal Morning Worship and Holy Communion. Corrected (restored) versions of these Rites and their Liturgies are presently in use, thus striking a balance once again between the Eastern and Western traditions of Orthodox Christianity.

The ancient question that continues to divide the Roman Catholic and Western Churches from the Orthodox Church regarding the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist had to be resolved when the Western Rite parishes were received into the Orthodox Church. The host used in Western Rite liturgies resembles the unleavened wafer used by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, but in fact it is leavened—although flattened—bread. The use of leavened bread in accordance with Orthodox theology, was required by Metropolitan Philip when he recieved these parishes into Orthodoxy. Interestingly, antidoron is also blessed and distributed at these Liturgies.

Although small in numbers at present, Western Rite Orthodoxy exists throughout the world. Numerous Episcopal parishes and their clergy in this country, as well as Anglican parishes and clergy in England, have returned en masse to Orthodoxy and continue to do so.

The Western Rite has proven to be an excellent missionary outreach in the Western World to those who seek the purity of Orthodox Faith, yet are uncomfortable with the oriental character of Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy. Nonetheless, people of either Rite worship together and the clergy may, with episcopal permission, concelebrate.

The properly Baptized and Chrismated members of parishes who use these liturgies and are approved by Metropolitan Philip are Orthodox Christians, and are welcome to worship in parishes within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and to receive the Sacred Mysteries.

Within the central and western states, additional information on the Western Rite Vicariate under Metropolitan Philip Saliba can be obtained by contacting Fr. John Connely, the Dean of the Western States, at St. Mark’s Orthodox Church, 1405 South Vine Street, Denver, Colorado 80210.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The current existence of "western rite" parishes in California, Oregon and Washington within the Antiochian Archdiocese has recently been brought to my attention by a number of clergy seeking direction regarding our relationship as a Diocese to these commu nities.

These parishes use, as a basis for worship, modified versions of the old Anglican missal or the pre-Vatican II mass. This is, at best, liturgically unsound and pastorally unwise: liturgically unsound because these rites are not in direct continuity with t he worship of the early Church in the West, but are primarily the result of 16th century Reformation and Counter-Reformation debates; pastorally unwise because this adds still further to our fragmentation as a Church in the Americas and creates a tiny grou p of missions and parishes that are liturgically isolated from the rest of the Church.

We are thus placed in the awkward position of having to accept the "western rite" vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese as belonging to the canonical Orthodox Church while at the same time recognizing that this is a foreign element within the Body of Christ, analogous to the creation of the Unia by the Roman Catholic Church.

Because of the ambiguous and experimental character of the "western rite" within the life of the Church, the following guidelines are to be adhered to:

1. "Western rite" clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese may not serve or receive communion in the parishes of this Diocese unless vested in traditional, "eastern" Orthodox vestments.

2. Clergy of this Diocese may not serve or participate in "western rite" liturgies.

3. The participation of our laity in any pan-Orthodox liturgical activity specifically with "western rite" parishes is to be actively discouraged.

These guidelines are important in order to maintain the integrity of the ministry of the Church, and they are to be uniformly applied throughout the Diocese. Naturally, we need also to be sensitive to the pastoral issues that may result from the applicati on of these guidelines, bearing in mind that our ministry to individuals should never be antagonistic. However, clear thinking on this subject, and a clear expression of those thoughts, will help people understand the issues which are involved in this com plicated and anomalous situation.

Your encyclical on the Western rite project of this Archdiocese has caused considerable confusion and inasmuch as I administer that program I have been asked to protest.

At first I had some misgivings as to the credibility of a bishop who, for political advantage, certified as Greek Orthodox communicant a woman disciple of a New Age guru and the daughter of a life long supporter of Krishnamurti, but that does not detract from your unwarranted assault on a movement that is no part of your Archdiocese or the Patriarchate in which it is located but is an official expression of the Patriarchate of Antioch.

The Western Rite vocation of the Church is over a century old and was founded on this continent by a bishop since canonized as a saint by his branch of the Church (which also happens to be the most populous Patriarchate) and is an effective source of grace for many incapable of adapting to alien ethnicities. You might well focus on the well known problems of the Greek Orthodox community, over a portion of which you preside.

You have reasons for shame but this gross attempt to sow confusion outside of your diocese contributes nothing to the hoped for harmony and unity of the Orthodox presence in America.

Faithfully,P.W.S. SchneirlaVicar General of the Western Rite

cc. Metropolitan Philip and various clergy

January 22, 1996

P.W.S. SchneirlaVicar General of the Western Rite8005 Ridge Boulevard Brooklyn, NY 11209

Dear Father Schneirla :

Thank you for your letter of January 5, 1996.

I am at once shocked and saddened not only by the tone of your letter - which vacillates between the superciliousness of the insecure and the arrogance of the ignorant - but also by the fact that you should address any bishop of the Church in such a rude and condescending tone. I assume by your title that you are a priest, though your letter does not state that you are. Surely you must be aware that within the Orthodox Church a level of politeness in addressing one's fellow priests - let alone bishops - is considered mandatory. Were you to write to one of your own bishops in such a tone, you would deserve to receive his censure in an ecclesiastical court. Nevertheless, I forgive your attack on the grounds that you are obviously not well-versed in politeness, nor in the practice of our Church. However, I have to point out that you do yourself and your movement a great disservice by writing as you do.

Let us clarify a few points. The letter which I issued on October 4th, 1995 regarding the western rite parishes within the geographical confines of my own Diocese, was addressed to the clergy of this Diocese. You, or some of your friends, intercepted the letter which was not addressed to you and now I find that you are attacking me because of its contents. That you accuse me of interfering in your own affairs is both unwarranted and blatantly untrue. By what authority do you dare to challenge my right to give instructions to the priests of my own Diocese?

On another level, you seem to have missed the entire point of what I was saying. My letter was conciliatory in tone and pastoral in its content, aimed at giving a balanced viewpoint regarding what I see as a pastoral problem. Your reply, apart from its rudeness, is aggressive in the extreme, and in no way causes me to think that it will ever be possible for me to change my thinking on this matter. Rather, by choosing to lecture me in such an undignified fashion, I am more than likely to be confirmed in my present opinions. Your claim that I represent some sort of "alien ethnicity" is a cheap shot - you know very well that our holy faith is above the demands of nationalism. I have great respect for the liturgical integrity of the Tridentine rite and the Book of Common Prayer, within their respective traditions - but not even the most crazed xenophobe would claim that they are native to these shores. Your mind-set is alien to the Orthodox Church and you would do well to become acquainted with the thinking of the Church.

For my part, I am prepared to move on in coming to some understanding of your position. However, before I can do that, I expect a full and complete personal apology from you. Your reckless slander is highly reprehensible and quite unfitting for a priest. May God forgive you.

Paternally yours,+Bishop Anthony of San Francisco The Priest. A Newsletter for the Clergy of the Diocese of San Francisco. Issue No. 5, May 1996

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Western Rite - Some Final Comments In the most recent edition of his book, The Orthodox Church , Bishop Kallistos Ware devotes one page to the "existence, albeit limited and tentative, of an Orthodoxy of the Western rite (equivalent to Eastern rite Catholicism, but in reverse." In this century, there have been two "western rite" experiments within canonical Orthodoxy. First, the Eglise CatholiqueOrthodoxe de France, the origins of which Bishop Kallistos dates "back to 1937, when a former Roman Catholic priest, Louis-Charles Winnaert (1880-1937), who had received episcopal consecration in the Liberal Catholic Church, was received at Paris with his followers into the Moscow Patriarchate" by the then patriarchal locum tenens , Metropolitan Sergius. Winnaert's episcopal consecration "was deemed doubtful" by the Church in Moscow and it "was specified that he should officiate only as a priest." This small "western rite" experiment continued under his successor, Father Evgraph Kovalesky (1905-1970), who was "consecrated in 1964 as Bishop Jean de St. Denys." Over the next several decades, the Eglise Catholique-Orthodoxe de France was to leave the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate (1953) and exist independently for a number of years until 1960, when they placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia or Synod Abroad. Eventually, they ended up under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Romania. Bishop Kallistos writes, in 1993, that this "Catholic-Orthodox Church of France... is now somewhat isolated from the other Orthodox jurisdictions in France... (and) has been accused of links with Theosophy." Since that time, the Patriarchate of Romania has severed all ties with this small g roup which, once again, exists as an independent entity devoid of any canonical link to the Church.Second - and more important for our immediate concerns in the Diocese of San Francisco - is the existence of "western rite" missions and parishes in California, Oregon and Washington under the jurisdiction of the Antiochian Archdiocese. The establishment of a "western rite" in the States dates back to an edict issued by the late Metropolitan Anthony (Bashir) in August, 1958. Always small numerically, the "western rite" of the Antiochian Archdiocese has never numbered more than 20 missions and parishes. Because of the relatively small size of what Father Schneirla - in his letter to Bishop Anthony - calls the "western rite project" of the Antiochian Archdiocese, it is little known by the rest of the Orthodox in America. The introduction of the "western rite" provoked a brief scholarly debate between Father Schneirla and the late Father Alexander Schmemann in the pages of the St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly in 1958. Further brief debates concerning the appropriateness of the "western rite" may be found in the SVTQ in 1980 and 1982. A brief excerpt from Father Schmemann's 1980 article is included in this issue of The Priest.

While Father Michael Johnson, pastor of the St. Nicholas Church in Tacoma, WA has written the main article for this issue of The Priest , there are two assertions in Father Schneirla's "response" to Bishop Anthony that I wish to comment on. First , the assertion that the "western rite vocation of the Church.... was founded on this continent by a bishop since canonized as a saint by his branch of the Church (which also happens to be the most populous Patriarchate)"- in other words, St. Tikhon - is historically false. While it is indeed true that St. Tikhon sent the 1892 edition of the American Book of Common Prayer to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church for a critical evaluation in 1904, it is wholly inaccurate to state that he "founded" the "western rite" in America. In 1906, a response framed by a subcommittee of the Holy Synod was approved and sent to St. Tikhon for his guidance. This response, which was published in English as Russian Observations on the American Prayer Book , translated by Wilfred Barnes and edited with notes by Walter Frere (Alcuin Club, London) in 1917, found many problems with the BCP. There is no documentary evidence whatsoever that St. Tikhon authorized the use of a "western rite" for Anglican converts based on the BCP. Any assertion to the contrary simply flies in the face of the facts. Second, Father Schneirla's assertion that Bishop Anthony represents an "alien ethnicity" speaks volumes about the deep psychological springs and perhaps even genuine prejudices that underlie what he calls "the western rite project of the" Antiochian Archdiocese.

In the original 1958 edict authorizing the "western rite" within the Antiochian Archdiocese, the late Metropolitan Bashir stated that it was his hope that the existence of a "western rite" within 20th century Orthodoxy "might serve the purpose of facilitating the conversion of groups of non-Orthodox western Christians to the Church." One can only hope that in our current evangelical zeal, our willingness to "cross land and sea (and even rite?) to make one proselyte," we do not end up making those who may be genuinely seeking the truth of Orthodoxy "twice as much a son of hell" as ourselves (Matthew 23:15).

Father Steven TsichlisPastor, Church of the AssumptionSeattle, WA

The Priest. A Newsletter for the Clergy of the Diocese of San Francisco. Issue No. 5, May 1996

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The "Western Rite": Is It Right for the Orthodox? The vast majority of Orthodox Christians identify with a specifically Orthodox way of worshipping. Though different languages are used throughout the Orthodox world, Orthodox Christians who are traveling - or simply visiting a different "jurisdiction" in America - can count on the church architecture looking familiar, the outline of the Liturgy being the same and the means of approaching and receiving the sacrament of Communion being the same as they are used to. Or at least they could until recently. In America an increasing number of converts to Orthodoxy are using a liturgical ritual that looks far more like services done in Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism some thirty years ago. This is being enthusiastically promoted in some quarters of the Church as "western rite" Orthodoxy.

The idea of using a "western rite" in the Orthodox Church first surfaced in England during the 19th century. A former Roman Catholic, Dr. Joseph Overbeck, joined the Orthodox Church in that country and apparently decided that Orthodoxy would never be able to evangelize the West unless it used western forms of worship. Otherwise, he reasoned, the Church would not have a "western memory." Overbeck suggested that a version of the Roman Mass - purified of any medieval errors - be used. His proposal, though received with interest in parts of the Orthodox Church, was never implemented.

Earlier in this century, a small "western rite" group - the Eglise Catholique-Orthodoxe - began functioning in France. And still later, in the late 1950s, another small group (the Basilian Fathers) were received into the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in the United States by then Metropolitan Anthony Bashir. These Basilian Fathers became the start of a canonical "western rite" presence in this country. Although the "western rite" of the Antiochian Archdiocese continued for years as a mere handful of par ishes, it has recently received a "shot in the arm" with the reception into Orthodoxy of a number of disaffected Episcopalians - sometimes including entire parishes. It is argued that the existence of a "western rite" within Orthodoxy offers these Anglo-C atholics a virtually perfect solution, since they can enter the Church without substantially changing their way of worship. After all, why should "unnecessary barriers" be placed in their way? Furthermore - so we are told - these "western rite" communiti es represent a return to the Orthodox Church of the authentic, pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west and therefore enhances her catholicity and appeal to all people.

Compelling as these arguments may seem, the presence of a "western rite" within Orthodoxy represents a change from the way things have been since the Western Schism of the 11th century (or at least since the Fourth Crusade). As such, this innovation needs to be examined very carefully. For the sake of brevity, we will confine ourselves here to "western rite" Orthodoxy as practiced in America and examine it with regards to four fundamental questions:

1.) Does the reconstituted "western rite" actually represent an authentic return to the pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west?

2.) If there were a mass return of western Christians to Orthodoxy (say, union with Rome or Canterbury), would this "western rite" provide a workable precedent?

3.) Does the Orthodox Church need a "western rite" in order to evangelize Americans?

4.) Does the "western rite" serve the internal needs of the Orthodox Church in this country today?

Does the reconstituted "western rite" actually represent an authentic return to the pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west?

The "western rite" as currently practiced in the Antiochian Archdiocese consists of two Eucharistic liturgies. As they are quite different from one another, let's consider them separately.

First, the "Liturgy of St. Gregory": this liturgy gets its name because it supposedly represents the Roman rite as practiced in the time of St. Gregory the Great, the bishop of Rome from 590 to 604 AD. There is no question that St. Gregory the Great left his mark on the history of worship - not only in the west, but also in the east. (Indeed, it may be argued that the Orthodox Church already has a Liturgy of St. Gregory - namely, the Presanctified Liturgy where this saint is always commemorated in the dis missal.) If the situation of having two Liturgies of St. Gregory isn't confusing enough, the question remains whether or not the Liturgy of St. Gregory as currently practiced in the "western rite" parishes of the Antiochian Archdiocese deserves this title at all. In fact, what we are actually presented with is the Tridentine Latin Mass (i.e., the Missal of Pius the V, printed in 1570), translated from Latin into King James English, with - among other things - references to the "merits of the saints" left out and the epiklesis of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom stuck in. In this regard, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, the Tridentine Mass was the Liturgy of the Roman Church as revised at the Counter Reformation. Second, the Gregori an Sacramentary (which, so far as the MSS tradition is concerned, is primarily Frankish and not Roman in origin) had already been revised in the 11th century (near the time of the Western Schism). So the present "Liturgy of St. Gregory" as used in America n "western rite" parishes is at least two revisions away from the saint whose name it bears - and both revisions were made at times of severe crises of faith in the west.

The inadequacies of this rite become obvious on close examination. The anaphora, for example - far from being a single unified prayer as one would expect - seems more like a loosely joined collection of prayers. Stranger yet, the first of these prayers b egins with the word "Therefore" (referring to what? Apparently, some transition has gone missing!). As if the disjointed nature of this anaphora weren't bad enough, tinkering with it by well meaning Orthodox has only made matters worse. According to the great Orthodox liturgical scholar and saint, Nicholas Cabasilas, the prayer in the Roman rite "Supplices te rogamus" ("Most humbly we implore Thee") is an "ascending epiklesis." Even so, the epiklesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has been adde d, thereby giving this rite both an ascending and descending epiklesis, in which the celebrant asks for the consecration of the gifts to be completed after it has already happened! Furthermore, such improbable features as the "last Gospel" are retained. (This was the reading of the prologue to the Gospel of John at the end of the service, a practice that had begun as a private devotion of the celebrating clergy sometime curing the 11th or 12th centuries and which, by the 16th century, had become a prescri bed appendage to the Mass.)

Second, the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon": However inappropriate the "Liturgy of St. Gregory" may seem for Orthodox worship, it can't hold a candle in this regard to the other "western rite" liturgy now in use, which has somehow gotten itself named after a 20th century Russian saint. St. Tikhon served as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America before being elected Patriarch of Moscow in 1917. During his tenure in America, he apparently received a petition for the use of a "western rite" from a group of American Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians. St. Tikhon then forwarded their request to the Holy Synod in Moscow, which examined this proposal carefully and granted the possibility of a "western rite", provided far reaching changes in the Book of Commo n Prayer were made. The Holy Synod left the final decision to St. Tikhon, who - for whatever reason - never formally authorized the establishment of a "western rite" during his pastorate in America. It therefore seems farfetched in the extreme to name th is liturgy after St. Tikhon. He is not the "father" of this "western rite" in even remotely the same way that St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil the Great are the fathers of the Liturgies which bear their names. Furthermore, even if St. Tikhon had authoriz ed the use of a "western rite", every administrative decision made by a saint should not be considered infallible.

What, then, is the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon"? First of all, it is not the Eucharistic rite of the Book of Common Prayer as ever approved by the Episcopal Church. Rather, it is based on a strange amalgam commonly known as the "Anglican Missal." This missal was developed by Anglo-Catholics to make up for deficiencies they perceived in the Book of Common Prayer . The Anglican Missal contains the anaphora and other prayers from the BCP, folded together with parts of the anaphora and other prayers from the Tridentine Mass translated from Latin into King James English. As now used in the "western rite" of the Antio chian Archdiocese, it contains still further additions and corrections made by the Orthodox. A more confusing liturgical hodgepodge could hardly be imagined! The "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" is the Reformation rite of Thomas Cranmer, with additions from the C ounter Reformation rite of the Council of Trent, with still further superficial tinkering in order to make it "more Orthodox."

In defense of this rite, some Orthodox are saying that we should accept it because it contains "nothing heretical." Unfortunately, that itself is an Anglican argument. An Orthodox rite must do far more than avoid heresy - it must clearly proclaim and tea ch the Orthodox faith. In Communist Russia as in Ottoman Greece, the Orthodox Liturgy alone maintained the faith through long years of persecution. Bearing in mind that Cranmer was probably a Zwinglian who designed his rite to express "the real absence" of Christ in the Eucharist, it is easy to see that the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" could never meet the basic criterion of being an Orthodox Liturgy.

In summary, the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" has no historical validity whatsoever. The "Liturgy of St. Gregory" can be traced back to that great saint only in a very attenuated way. The simple fact is, neither of these liturgies represents an authentic retur n to the pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west.

Does the "western rite" provide a path for the eventual reunion of Christians?

With the reception of "western rite" parishes into Orthodoxy, there were some who felt that the Uniate ideal had now found its proper home. Comparison of Western Rite Orthodox to Eastern Rite Catholics is, of course, inevitable. And, we should keep in mi nd that historically, Rome has often held up its Eastern Rite Catholics as a bridge to union with the Orthodox. How successful has that bridge been?

The truth is, Uniatism has been a continuous obstacle to unity between Orthodoxy and Rome. And this recurring difficulty reared its head again only recently, with the breakdown of Communism in eastern Europe. We would be naive in the extreme to suppose t hat "western rite" Orthodoxy will have a more beneficial result. If they grow in numbers, the "western rite" Orthodox will increasingly appear to western Christians as a kind of pseudo-Orthodox whose purpose is not to evangelize but to proselytize.

Some might still argue that the "western rite" would at least demonstrate to "western" Christians what Orthodoxy would expect liturgically if a reunion of Christians should occur. Yet this too is groundless. The simple fact is, those parishes using the " western rite" within the Antiochian Archdiocese are not following the "western rite" as now practiced by the overwhelming majority of "western" Christians. Indeed, one must ask why the Orthodox Church should have made herself into a safe haven for a tiny minority of western Christians who have rejected the reforms of the liturgical movement. Regarding the "Liturgy of St. Gregory" - it would be ludicrous for the Orthodox to tell the Roman Catholics that they should go back to doing the "last Gospel" at the end of their Liturgy. Or that revisions made by Vatican II to the Roman anaphora to make it read more like a single prayer were somehow misguided. The "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" would be even more indefensible in the case of Anglicans. Many of the recent revisions to the Book of Common Prayer (as with the Roman Missal ) have been based on sound liturgical scholarship - and many are clearly borrowings from the ancient Christian east! Furthermore, since both of these "western-rite" liturgies are being celebrated in "King James" English, are we telling the Christians of t he various western confessions that modern English is unacceptable as a liturgical language? This, in spite of the fact that modern English is now used in many translations of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?

In summary, a "western rite" Orthodoxy, at least as it is currently being practiced, seems fated to have an increasingly negative effect on our already troubled position in ecumenical relations.

Does the Orthodox Church need a "western rite" in order to evangelize Americans?

If we can picture Overbeck in 19th century England we might realize why he felt an Orthodoxy using a "western rite" was absolutely essential if the Church was to have a viable mission in the West. Overbeck would have only been able to experience the worsh ip of Orthodoxy as done among recent immigrants, using not English, but the languages of their mother countries. No wonder he might reach the conclusion that only an Orthodoxy with a different rite, that had a western memory, could ever again be the churc h of the venerable Bede.

St. Bede, of course, was a great Anglo-Saxon historian who lived long before the Western Schism. As such, he is perfectly acceptable to us Orthodox today as a saint to be venerated. So are many of the other saints of northwestern Europe - such as Patrick , Aidan, Alban and others, who are now being included in the liturgical calendars of Orthodox Churches. It is obviously a great advantage for converts to be able to venerate saints of their own ethnic background - and it speaks to the catholicity of the C hurch. Clearly, Orthodoxy doesn't have to have a "western rite" to have a western memory. With this in mind, let us suppose Overbeck's experience of the Church had been quite different. Suppose he had attended the celebration of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on the feast of the venerable Bede and there in the narthex was a beautiful icon of this saint for veneration by the faithful. Suppose, too that the Liturgy had been conducted entirely in English. What could he find missing to celebrate the fe ast of this great saint of the early Christian west? True, the Liturgy would not be served in exactly the same way as Bede himself would have done. (But then, neither - by a long shot - would the "western rite" liturgies of St. Tikhon or St. Gregory be t he same as done by the venerable Bede.) What matters most is that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the ancient, pre-schismatic liturgical life of the west were the same in all essentials.

Without question, Byzantine worship has demonstrated its suitability for all people. It became the dominant liturgical expression for the Russians as truly as it had been for the Greeks. It also rooted itself deeply in the culture of those Orthodox "Lati ns", the Romanians. And in Alaska it expressed the religious aspirations of native cultures - Aleuts, Tlingets and others. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is now being celebrated in Japanese, Korean and a half dozen tribal languages in Africa. Recent ly, it provided the scriptural worship sought after by the Evangelical Orthodox Church, who were, until recently, the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission. The use of the Byzantine liturgical tradition by the AEOM is one of the strongest arguments, aga inst the need of a "western rite" for purposes of evangelization in America.

But doesn't the use of the "western rite" make it easier to bring people into the Church when they already have "their own" liturgical tradition? Perhaps, but the drawbacks are enormous. Shortly after her former Episcopal parish was received into the "we stern rite" of the Antiochian Archdiocese in Spokane, WA a woman commented, "We were kind of underdogs in the Episcopal Church by worshipping in the old way. Now we feel we're in step with our Church." Sadly, it can only be a matter of time before she di scovers that she is now far more out of step liturgically with her new Church than she ever was with the old. In summary, the use of the "western rite" as a tool for evangelism seems unnecessary at best and misleading at worst.

Does the "western rite" serve the internal needs of the Orthodox Church in this country today?

A knowledgeable Orthodox Christian, if asked about the Church's greatest need in western Europe and the Americas today, would probably respond with a single word: unity. In this regard, the Byzantine liturgical tradition has been of inestimable value in h olding the Church together. On the other hand, ethnicity has probably been the greatest force for disunity. Ethnic heritage, of course, does not have to be a divisive factor. One can be proud of one's heritage while celebrating the fact that one is part of a Church that is truly multiethnic (as opposed to "non-ethnic", as the alternative is sometimes wrongly presented.)

How does the "western rite" fit into this need to bring the Church together as a truly multi-ethnic community, united by faith and worship? Unfortunately, the "western rite" can be viewed as a kind of "super-ethnicity" which is just the opposite of what t he Church needs today. Narrow as their ethnic view might have been, and as much as they may have insisted unwaveringly on the use of their own language, Orthodox Christians have always shown a willingness to use a common form of worship - until now. For all intents and purposes, the use of the "western rite" takes ethnicity one step further. Not only do these converts insist on using (an archaic) form of their own language, but they also insist on using an exclusive liturgical rite that is common to no o ne but themselves.

Orthodox Christians who visit a "western rite" parish will find themselves in an alien environment. Not only will the structure of the worship in a "western rite" parish be unfamiliar, but the very method of receiving the sacrament of communion will be di fferent, so that even though technically in communion, visitors from established Orthodox traditions will be discouraged from receiving the holy mysteries. ("Western rite" visitors to other Orthodox parishes will be similarly discomfited.) Contrary to th e ancient practices of the Church, "Byzantine" clergy visiting "western rite" parishes are not allowed - in current Antiochian practice - to concelebrate (and would hardly know how to, even if permitted). Pan-Orthodox services like the vespers for the Sun day of Orthodoxy are now rendered complex if not downright confusing by the possible presence of "western rite" clergy. Pilgrimage is a vital part of the Orthodox tradition and the current situation is bound to affect "western rite" pilgrims to traditiona lly Orthodox countries like Greece or Russia. Instead of finding themselves "at home" in the liturgical traditions of these foreign lands, they will be strangers in their own Church, unable to fully benefit from experiencing the liturgical life served in those holy places that mark the heartlands of what is supposed to be their faith. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the majority of Orthodox faithful and clergy in these countries would accept "western rite" visitors as "their own." Instead, they will pro bably be looked upon with a certain amount of suspicion, as a kind of "sheep in wolves clothing."

Perhaps the plight of "western rite" Orthodox Christians is best understood by looking at the actual structure of an Orthodox Church, where the western part of the building is called the narthex. Though they are canonically within the body of Christ, the Church, Orthodox Christians using the "western rite" are still, in a sense, "only in the narthex." They will not be fully integrated into the Church's life until they can come forward and fully participate in the Church's liturgical worship with their bro thers and sisters in Christ.

There are some, of course, who will point out that there was considerable liturgical diversity in the early Church - and therefore, why is such diversity not possible and even desirable today? There was indeed considerable liturgical variation from one pl ace to another in ancient times. The reason for this was the simple fact that the average person never got more than 25 miles from his place of birth and communications from one place to another were slow and difficult. Under such circumstances, liturgic al diversity was a natural development and hardly a problem. Today, by contrast, we live in what has been called a "global village" where communications are instant and American families often move several times, from one state to another, while their chi ldren are growing up. Everything in our environment argues for greater uniformity in liturgical practice. For example: what are potential converts to do when they happen to see coverage of an Orthodox service on television, become intrigued, and then are completely confused when they discover that Orthodoxy in their area has an entirely different look? Or, on the other hand, what is a "western rite" Orthodox family to do when they move to another town where the only Orthodox parish is "Byzantine" and pos sibly ethnic? What will they do when they feel far more at home in a "continuing" Anglican parish that meets down the road? In summary, the "western rite" can only impede the progress of the Orthodox Church towards reaching a goal of unity within ethnic diversity. Furthermore, a multiplicity of rites is simply inappropriate in a highly mobile society linked by global communications.

There is no reason to question the motives of those who support a "western rite" within Orthodoxy. They are apparently doing so for what they consider to be the very best of reasons. In fact, we might all agree on the ends - yet with all due respect, we simply cannot agree on the means. The "western rite" is inherently divisive. Even so, we must not allow it to divide the Church. At the same time, Orthodox who do not accept the "western rite" are not simply "impeding progress." Rather, they are trying to safeguard the Church from a policy that is neither in the best interests of her established members, nor of her converts. We rejoice whenever and wherever converts are received into the Church. But we also take heart from the fact that many "western rite" parishes eventually see the wisdom of "converting" to the Byzantine liturgical tradition. We can only hope that others will continue to follow that good example.

Father Michael Johnsonpastor, St Nicholas ChurchTacoma, WAThe Priest. A Newsletter for the Clergy of the Diocese of San Francisco. Issue No. 5, May 1996

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Does the "western rite" serve the internal needs of the Orthodox Church in this country today?

A knowledgeable Orthodox Christian, if asked about the Church's greatest need in western Europe and the Americas today, would probably respond with a single word: unity. In this regard, the Byzantine liturgical tradition has been of inestimable value in h olding the Church together. On the other hand, ethnicity has probably been the greatest force for disunity. Ethnic heritage, of course, does not have to be a divisive factor. One can be proud of one's heritage while celebrating the fact that one is part of a Church that is truly multiethnic (as opposed to "non-ethnic", as the alternative is sometimes wrongly presented.)

How does the "western rite" fit into this need to bring the Church together as a truly multi-ethnic community, united by faith and worship? Unfortunately, the "western rite" can be viewed as a kind of "super-ethnicity" which is just the opposite of what t he Church needs today. Narrow as their ethnic view might have been, and as much as they may have insisted unwaveringly on the use of their own language, Orthodox Christians have always shown a willingness to use a common form of worship - until now. For all intents and purposes, the use of the "western rite" takes ethnicity one step further. Not only do these converts insist on using (an archaic) form of their own language, but they also insist on using an exclusive liturgical rite that is common to no o ne but themselves.

Orthodox Christians who visit a "western rite" parish will find themselves in an alien environment. Not only will the structure of the worship in a "western rite" parish be unfamiliar, but the very method of receiving the sacrament of communion will be di fferent, so that even though technically in communion, visitors from established Orthodox traditions will be discouraged from receiving the holy mysteries. ("Western rite" visitors to other Orthodox parishes will be similarly discomfited.) Contrary to th e ancient practices of the Church, "Byzantine" clergy visiting "western rite" parishes are not allowed - in current Antiochian practice - to concelebrate (and would hardly know how to, even if permitted). Pan-Orthodox services like the vespers for the Sun day of Orthodoxy are now rendered complex if not downright confusing by the possible presence of "western rite" clergy. Pilgrimage is a vital part of the Orthodox tradition and the current situation is bound to affect "western rite" pilgrims to traditiona lly Orthodox countries like Greece or Russia. Instead of finding themselves "at home" in the liturgical traditions of these foreign lands, they will be strangers in their own Church, unable to fully benefit from experiencing the liturgical life served in those holy places that mark the heartlands of what is supposed to be their faith. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the majority of Orthodox faithful and clergy in these countries would accept "western rite" visitors as "their own." Instead, they will pro bably be looked upon with a certain amount of suspicion, as a kind of "sheep in wolves clothing."

There is much for the right scholars to comment on in relation to the so-called St. Tikhon mass and the Gregorian mass. It perhaps ties in to questions of the place of Latin tradition within western-rite Orthodoxy. Within ROCOR it appears that the pre-St. Augustine so-called independent Celtic traditions seem to be emphasised. I would like to see far more scholastic evidence in relation to these matters.

What I will comment on is the issue of the utility of the Western-rite to the Orthodox Church as it is in the West today. Just as Byzantine Orthodoxy has those who favour in the Slavic traditions the pre-Nikonian "Old Believer" liturgical norms, and do so in communion with the Russian Church, the Western-rite liturgy broadly and the mass rite in particular seems to favour those whose inclination and bent is towards such matters.

That the Roman and Anglican Churches have had radical liturgical reform that has rendered pre-Vatican II traditions - the Gregorian mass and the Book of Common Prayer to the "living museum" status has meant that for the past 40 or more years that western Christians have little relationship to the liturgical culture that Orthodoxy's western-rite is saying is culturally indisputable for Western Orthodoxy.

This seems to ignore the fact that for every 100 Western converts, perhaps 98 of them are in Byzantine-rite parishes, worshipping with their so-called ethnic brethren. In our country we refer to ethnic background. An Australian of Russian background is an Australian. They pray for the Queen of Australia. They are part of civil society. I struggle to understand why Byzantine Orthodoxy is irrelevant to Anglo-Saxons when there are 50 or 100 times more Western convert priests ministering to us - and to ethnic Orthodox in the Byzantine rite.

Indeed the separation of the Western-rite into an enclave of generally tiny congregations, with minimal contact with their Orthodox brethren in the majority rite augers poorly for Orthodox unity. How much better to have the Western-rite priests simply concelebrating with and worshipping with their people in unity with the vast majority of Orthodox believers.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

From the Diocesan News for Clergy and Laity, February 1995, Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople)

Editorial note: This short piece, while containing some incorrect information, is presented on WesternOrthodox.com to show that not all bishops and clergy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) hold the same unfavourable views on the Antiochian Western Rite that Greek Orthodox Bishop Anthony of San Francisco does.

From the Diocesan News for Clergy and Laity, February 1995, Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople)

Editorial note: This short piece, while containing some incorrect information, is presented on WesternOrthodox.com to show that not all bishops and clergy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) hold the same unfavourable views on the Antiochian Western Rite that Greek Orthodox Bishop Anthony of San Francisco does.

Thanks for enlarging the font size. I managed to read them. :-)

Is there current material denoting the 2011 position of the Greek Church in relation to the WR?

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

SubdeaconDavid, you seem to use a lot of blanket statements that appear, to me anyway, to only apply to the situation you observe down in Australia. Have you had much experience with the Antiochian Western Rite in the United States? Because there isn't much of a "unity" issue in our Archdiocese; not amongst the Western Rite parishes together nor amongst the Western Rite and Byzantine parishes with each other. There are two Antiochian parishes in my city and we are "sister" churches. We love each other. Our recently retired Western Rite Archpriest now serves at the Byzantine parish, and our parishioners attend each other's events and services on a regular basis. There is no "separation" of the Western Rite into an "enclave" that lacks "contact" with our other Orthodox brethren. In fact, we have a Pan-Orthodox Council in our city (which has 5 Orthodox Churches) that meets regularly to organize events where we all attend and show our unity to the community. From what I've been told, the situation is much the same in Denver, which has 2 Western Rite parishes.

Missions and outreach are but one aspect of the goals for the Western Rite. You always tend to focus on them as if they're the sole reason the Western Rite even exists.

SubdeaconDavid, you seem to use a lot of blanket statements that appear, to me anyway, to only apply to the situation you observe down in Australia. Have you had much experience with the Antiochian Western Rite in the United States? Because there isn't much of a "unity" issue in our Archdiocese; not amongst the Western Rite parishes together nor amongst the Western Rite and Byzantine parishes with each other. There are two Antiochian parishes in my city and we are "sister" churches. We love each other. Our recently retired Western Rite Archpriest now serves at the Byzantine parish, and our parishioners attend each other's events and services on a regular basis. There is no "separation" of the Western Rite into an "enclave" that lacks "contact" with our other Orthodox brethren. In fact, we have a Pan-Orthodox Council in our city (which has 5 Orthodox Churches) that meets regularly to organize events where we all attend and show our unity to the community. From what I've been told, the situation is much the same in Denver, which has 2 Western Rite parishes.

Missions and outreach are but one aspect of the goals for the Western Rite. You always tend to focus on them as if they're the sole reason the Western Rite even exists.

I am sorry for misrepresenting the position with the Antiochian Church. Perhaps the size of the AWRV gives impetus for achieving things only aspired for in the other WR friendly Churches. I am sure that the WR in different places has great fraternal relations with the Byzantine rite. The only situation that I have any knowledge of - and that is limited in first person knowledge is ROCOR. Certainly I have had negative feedback, or perhaps differing statements in relation to the challenges of the WR-Byzantine rite interface from clergy and others in ROCOR. Not all were by any means negative - but some were decidedly so.

A few questions that might help:

Do you see the AWRV as a model for others like ROCOR?Do the AWRV report to their local deans and bishops or direct to the Metropolitan like in ROCOR? What level of authority do the senior priests of the AWRV have? Is their a Dean of the WR?What about other countries outside the US? Can you envisage the AWRV having an autonomous status rather like a Eastern Catholic status of having enough size and adherents to havew its own bishops?

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

The Romanian Church (not Slavic and not Greek) had a stint with some French WR group, but I think it didn't end up well, which is a shame; one would think that the French (or other neo-Latin peoples) would be more fit for such an enterprise because of their Catholic, not tainted by Protestantism, heritage.

Logged

"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

With the Western-rite largely confined to the Antiochian Self-Ruled in the US and to ROCOR with very small presences under other Slavic Churches, could someone from a Greek Orthodox perspective explain the response of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the large Churches under the EC in the US, Australia and elsewhere?

In the Australian Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, there has been nothing official, mainly because the only WR parish & monastery is ROCOR, and relationships had been poor between ROCOR & GOA(Aus) for some time up until the Rapproachment (because the GOA(Aus) being under the EP recognized Patriarch Sergius). Last October was the first time the ROCOR Bishop Alypi and Archbishop Stlianos of the GOA met officially in the First Episcopal Assembly of all Canonical Orthodox Bishops of Oceania held in the wake of Chambesy. Prior to this was the "Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops" and ROCOR was not present. Relationships are much better now though.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

With the Western-rite largely confined to the Antiochian Self-Ruled in the US and to ROCOR with very small presences under other Slavic Churches, could someone from a Greek Orthodox perspective explain the response of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the large Churches under the EC in the US, Australia and elsewhere?

In the Australian Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, there has been nothing official, mainly because the only WR parish & monastery is ROCOR, and relationships had been poor between ROCOR & GOA(Aus) for some time up until the Rapproachment (because the GOA(Aus) being under the EP recognized Patriarch Sergius). Last October was the first time the ROCOR Bishop Alypi and Archbishop Stlianos of the GOA met officially in the First Episcopal Assembly of all Canonical Orthodox Bishops of Oceania held in the wake of Chambesy. Prior to this was the "Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops" and ROCOR was not present. Relationships are much better now though.

Interesting. I did not know that Arb. Stilianos had finally called the Assembly. I've been wondering, given the impression his grace left on the grand tour paving the way for Abp. Spyridon in North America, how the OCA was going to be handled, not only because the OCA Diocese of the West includes Hawaiihttp://www.oca.org/CAdioceseWE.asp?SID=8per the Tomos of Autocephaly

Quote

7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate

http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12but also the Orthodox Church in America in Australia. But I see now that the Australian parishes have been removed from the OCA site. I know that with the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion between ROCOR and Moscow and the immediate resumption of relations between ROCOR and the OCA, that the OCA released some parishes back to ROCOR in Australia, while others had been released to Antioch. According to Orthodoxwiki it still has St. Michael's in Homebush, Sydney. I seem to recall hearing something about it in the news recently-has the OCA fully pulled out of Australia, leaving only itself only Hawaii in Oceania? Is that why it, along with the Bulgarians, were absent, or were they not invited by Abp. Stylianos, as happened with the Polish Bishops in South America?http://orthodoxwiki.org/Episcopal_Assembly_of_Oceania(the Chambesy accords do not specify where Hawaii falls. Historically (in Orthodoxy) and canonically, it should be with North America, but I am not sure that history and canons is how Chambesy divided up the world)

Quote

Canonical Issues: Chaired by Archbishop Stylianos and with representatives from each Orthodox jurisdiction, this committee will compile a list of all bishops and clergy in Oceania and another list of those who wrongly promote themselves as being canonically Orthodox.

The OCA, if it still has a parish in Australia, and if Hawaii comes under Oceania, on which list will Abp. Stylinos put it (and the Bulgaians)?

Btw

Quote

An invitation was sent to all canonical bishops resident in Australia, Oceania and Southeast Asia to attend the Episcopal Assembly of Oceania and Asia. Metropolitans Ambrose of Korea and Nektarios of Hong Kong did not attend. Presumably consequently, the Episcopal Assembly was subsequently named the Episcopal Assembly of Oceania, and included all those bishops who resided in Australia and Oceania.

I don't see Arb./Met. Daniel's signature, nor an explanation above of its absence, in particular as he might be ex officio second vice chairman (though that is not as clear cut perhaps as it is with Met. Jonah and Abp. Justinian in North America). Japan is further Southeast in Asia than Korea, or did someone move it? IIRC, I pointed out that the omission of the Far East in the Chambessy division was a serious lacuna.

While we are at it, what's a sticky thread? I've seen it mentioned before, and if it is what I think it is, maybe we can one on all the Episcopal Assemblies throughout the world? While we are at it, I would like to see the official web sites of each Episcopal Assembly link to each Autocephalous Orthodox Church and every other Episcopal Assembly in the world, to get this ball rolling.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Do the AWRV report to their local deans and bishops or direct to the Metropolitan like in ROCOR?

The Vicariate itself has a Vicar, with deans underneath him. The Vicar reports directly to the Metropolitan. The priests and parishes, however, answer directly to their Bishop of course.

Quote

What level of authority do the senior priests of the AWRV have?

The same as any senior Byzantine priest.

Quote

What about other countries outside the US?

I'm not too familiar with the situation for the WR outside of the U.S. unfortunately.

Quote

Can you envisage the AWRV having an autonomous status rather like a Eastern Catholic status of having enough size and adherents to havew its own bishops?

I would be a while before something like that happened, but I'd say yes, I could see this being the case. I think we can all agree though that the Orthodox Church as a whole, here in the U.S. has some huge adjustments to make as far as jurisdictions go. I think that'd have to be sorted out first before anything like this ever happened.

The OCA, if it still has a parish in Australia, and if Hawaii comes under Oceania, on which list will Abp. Stylinos put it (and the Bulgaians)?

Archbishop Stylianos is merely the Chairman of the Assembly of all Canonical Orthodox Bishops of Oceania. Under the Chambesy Rules of Operation, all decisions must be made by the consensus of all member Bishops of the each Region's Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops.

7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate

And does the OCA have "exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America"? These are the types of things the Regional Assemblies of Canonical Orthodox Bishops will be aiming to correct in the lead up to the next Ecumenical Synod.

But why we are discussing any of this on this thread is beyond me. I merely stated what I knew of the WR situation in Australia as per the OP request.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 01:46:54 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

The OCA, if it still has a parish in Australia, and if Hawaii comes under Oceania, on which list will Abp. Stylinos put it (and the Bulgaians)?

Archbishop Stylianos is merely the Chairman of the Assembly of all Canonical Orthodox Bishops of Oceania. Under the Chambesy Rules of Operation, all decisions must be made by the consensus of all member Bishops of the each Region's Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops.

Quote

This Conference proposes that, for the transitional period where the canonical solution of the issue will be prepared, "Episcopal Assemblies" of all canonically recognized bishops in each region should be created (or founded) in each of the regions defined below. The bishops will continue to be subject to the same canonical jurisdictions to which they are subject today.b) These Assemblies will consist of all the bishops in each region who are in canonical communion with all of the most holy Orthodox Churches

Quote

The Bishops of the Diaspora, living in the Diaspora and possessing parishes in multiple regions, will be members of the Episcopal Assemblies of those regions.

Quote

The Orthodox churches are bound not to advance actions that could hinder the above process for a canonical resolution of the issue of the Diaspora, and to do their utmost to facilitate the work of the Episcopal Assemblies and the restoration of normal canonical order in the Diaspora.

http://www.scoba.us/resources/chambesy_documents/decision.htmlLOL. Catch-22: under the Chambesy Rules of Operation, if the OCA still has a parish in Australia, then Bishop Benjamin (if Hawaii is to be included. IIRC the Australian parishes used to be administered by the Bishop of the West) and/or Met. Jonah, Met. Joseph (Bulgarian), Bp. Mark (Moscow), and Polish bishop get to make that decision.http://orthodoxwiki.org/Australian_jurisdictions_without_a_local_bishopSince Moscow, Bulgaria and Poland signed Chambesy, something the Phanar has made much of as promoting Chambesy as the will of the whole Church, and the Episcopal Assembly of North America solved that problem about the OCA's canonicity, there should be no problem of these bishops to take their place on the Episcopal Assembly, now is there?

Since Abp. Stylianos exceeded his mandate in inviting the bishops of Korea and Hong Kong (the Greek ones, that is), why not the Japanese?

7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate

And does the OCA have "exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America"?

No.

Does Constantinople, Antioch, Moscow, Romania, Georgia and Greece have exclusive spriitual and canonical jusrisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confessions in their historical/claimed territory.

But why we are discussing any of this on this thread is beyond me. I merely stated what I knew of the WR situation in Australia as per the OP request.

I'll have to see if I can put my hands on it, but more than once it has been made in the GOARCH here that "WR situation" in North America will have to be "resolved," i.e. disbanded (and yes, they came out and said that), before Orthodox unity can be achieved in North America.

Btw, I just spoke today with a WRO from Denver, which has two WRO among 5 Orthodox parishes. He tells me that all 5 parishes do plenty of events together, that Bp. Isaiah remains quite supportive, and they are not "isolated," "alien" and "confused" as claimed by the Greek Diocese of San Francisco (whose bishop, btw, would be in the Oceania Episcopal Assembly too if Hawaii is in Oceania).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But why we are discussing any of this on this thread is beyond me. I merely stated what I knew of the WR situation in Australia as per the OP request.

I'll have to see if I can put my hands on it, but more than once it has been made in the GOARCH here that "WR situation" in North America will have to be "resolved," i.e. disbanded (and yes, they came out and said that), before Orthodox unity can be achieved in North America.

Well, when you "get your hands on" the evidence, please come back to this thread and post it. Until then, lets not send this thread off topic with your speculation about Chambesy and the location of Hawaii.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

But why we are discussing any of this on this thread is beyond me. I merely stated what I knew of the WR situation in Australia as per the OP request.

I'll have to see if I can put my hands on it, but more than once it has been made in the GOARCH here that "WR situation" in North America will have to be "resolved," i.e. disbanded (and yes, they came out and said that), before Orthodox unity can be achieved in North America.

Well, when you "get your hands on" the evidence, please come back to this thread and post it. Until then, lets not send this thread off topic with your speculation about Chambesy and the location of Hawaii.

What speculation?

I know Hawaii is in Oceania

and I know it is canonically in the Diocese of the West of the Orthodox Church in America.

No speculation.

Btw, I wonder about the WRO in Hawaii, as the Church of Hawaii of the Kingdom of Hawaii was a member of the Anglican communion, King Kamehameha IV, who himself wrote the preface to the Hawaiian Book of Common Prayer, and King Kamehameha V laid the cornerstone to St. Andrew's Cathedral, the church properties being donated directly from crown (and not state) lands. Its presence infuriated the American missionaries, who were early evangelicals and later overthrew the monarchy, because it instituted Good Friday and Christmas observances, ritual, and enthroned its own bishop in 1867. After the monarchy was overthrown, it was dissolved and turned over to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America .

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Ozgeorge have any Western-rite come forward in Australia seeking to be under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Stylianos?

No. Archbishop Stylianos and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia are under the jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate which has no Western Rite parishes.

Is that because the Oecumenical Patriarch does not endorse the notion of a Western-rite? If so why not? Is it something that the EC would wish reversed if it could be? That I imagine would be contested and difficult to achieve unless consensus is achieved.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Ozgeorge have any Western-rite come forward in Australia seeking to be under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Stylianos?

No. Archbishop Stylianos and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia are under the jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate which has no Western Rite parishes.

Is that because the Oecumenical Patriarch does not endorse the notion of a Western-rite? If so why not? Is it something that the EC would wish reversed if it could be? That I imagine would be contested and difficult to achieve unless consensus is achieved.

I'm not sure that we can say that the Oecumenical Patriarchate does not endorse the notion of a Western Rite since it had Churches and monasteries with "Western" Rites including a Benedictine Monastery on Mount Athos with a 300 year tradition up until the 13th Century (Amalfion).To my knowledge the Synod of the Oecumenical Patriarchate has said nothing officially about the current Western Rite. Some Bishops under it's jurisdiction have addressed issues in their diocese in the past giving guidelines to its clergy and laity (as we have seen above in the case of Bishop Anthony of Denver in 1995), but the modern Western Rite itself is a matter for the Antiochian and Moscow Patriarchates who introduced them in their respective jurisdictions without consultation with the rest of the Church.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2011, 11:12:51 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Ozgeorge have any Western-rite come forward in Australia seeking to be under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Stylianos?

No. Archbishop Stylianos and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia are under the jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate which has no Western Rite parishes.

Is that because the Oecumenical Patriarch does not endorse the notion of a Western-rite? If so why not? Is it something that the EC would wish reversed if it could be? That I imagine would be contested and difficult to achieve unless consensus is achieved.

I'm not sure that we can say that the Oecumenical Patriarchate does not endorse the notion of a Western Rite since it had Churches and monasteries with "Western" Rites including a Benedictine Monastery on Mount Athos with a 300 year tradition up until the 13th Century (Amalfion).To my knowledge the Synod of the Oecumenical Patriarchate has said nothing officially about the current Western Rite. Some Bishops under it's jurisdiction have addressed issues in their diocese in the past giving guidelines to its clergy and laity (as we have seen above in the case of Bishop Anthony of Denver in 1995), but the modern Western Rite itself is a matter for the Antiochian and Moscow Patriarchates who introduced them in their respective jurisdictions without consultation with the rest of the Church.

Wrong. (btw, Bp. Antony was in San Francisco, Bp. Isaish (Many Years!) in Denver (and in the Resident Synod of Constantinople IIRC). Both issued guidelines, which contradict each other).

Quote

On 31st May 1958, His Beatitude, Alexander III, Patriarch of Antioch of blessed memory, in consultation with the heads of the other autocephalous Orthodox churches, authorized His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony (Bashir), of blessed memory, to establish the Western Rite in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

In fact, in 1870 the holy Synod of Moscow established a permanent commission to examine the rites of Western Christianity for ex-Roman Catholics and Anglicans/Episcopalians.

In 1904 this commission was asked by Archbishop Tikhon Belavin of North America (the future Patriarch of Moscow and now a canonized saint)—a man of immense spiritual gifts and great missionary heart—to examine the American edition of the Book of Common Prayer, used by Episcopalians. After corrections to bring it into conformity with the Orthodox Faith, the Holy Synod gave approval for its use. Because of his interest in Western Rite missionary outreach, Saint Tikhon is today known as the Patron of the Western Rite, and the corrected eucharistic liturgy from the Book of Common Prayer now bears the additional distinction of being called the Rite of Saint Tikhon.

Along a similar line, in the 1920s, former Roman Catholic parishes in Poland were received into the Russian Orthodox Church. They were permitted to use the Gregorian Western Rite (named for the seventh-century Orthodox saint and Bishop of Rome, Saint Gregory the Great, called the Dialogist on the Orthodox calendar). At this same time Constantinople concurred in principle with the idea of restored Western Rite Orthodoxy. Then, in the 1930s, the Moscow Patriarchate accepted a Western Rite group in France, about ten parishes, with the wise proviso that clergy of Western and Eastern Rites be able to serve in both rites. This inter-participation in rites, Father Abramtsov explains, is exactly what shows in concrete terms that individual clergy as well as Churches are in communion with each other.

Because of dangerous political developments for the Russian Church in the Soviet Union, these French Western Rite clergy came under the jurisdiction of Constantinople in 1953. By 1960 they had been received under the protection of a most remarkable man, Archbishop John Maximovitch (†1966) of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile. Well known to Orthodox Christians throughout the world and in every jurisdiction as a miracle-worker and great ascetic, he is called Blessed John by his venerators today. His tomb in the crypt of the Cathedral of Our Lady, Joy of All Who Sorrow, in San Francisco, is an object of pilgrimage for thousands each year; he will soon be canonized [ed.: St. John Maximovitch was canonized in 1994; at the time, his relics were unearthed and found to be miraculously incorrupt].

While Archbishop in Europe, John Maximovitch was also the first Orthodox hierarch of modern times to restore to the consciousness of Orthodoxy the previously forgotten saints of the preschismatic West—such as Saint Patrick, Enlightener of Ireland, Saint Martin of Tours, and many others.

For us in the Antiochian Archdiocese, however, another historic year was 1958 when, after approval from Patriarch Alexander III of Antioch, Metropolitan Antony Bashir, of blessed memory, issued an edict authorizing the use of the Western Rite in North America. He observed that he had met innumerable non-Orthodox Christians in the United States and Canada who were attracted by our Orthodox Faith, but could not find a congenial home in the liturgical world of Eastern Christendom.

At the beginning of the 18th Century a considerable correspondence was conducted between the English Nonjurers1 (usually styled the "Catholic remnant" of the British Church), Peter the Great, Czar of Russia, and the Œcumenical Patriarch at Constantinople. It was proposed that a parish be established in London, to be called the Unia, and which would be Orthodox and Western Rite. The Nonjurers' lack of funds prevented their sending the proposed two delegates to Russia to seal the agreement. However, the Patriarch's second letter to the "British Catholics" expressed a willingness to effect union and fix details later: "As for custom and ecclesiastical order and for the form and discipline of administering the sacraments, they will be easily settled when once a union is effected."2 A century later the Anglican deacon William Palmer worked with Alexis Khomiakov and Metropolitan (Saint) Philaret of Moscow towards the establishment of a Western Rite Orthodox Church in England. Dr. Joseph Overbeck's conversion in 1865 led to the Holy Synod of Moscow giving approval to a restored, corrected, Mass of St. Peter (or St. Gregory) in Latin in 1870. This was based on over one hundred years of study, work and attempts to do this very thing.3 In 1879, Overbeck went to Constantinople and met with Patriarch Joachim III. In 1882, the Greek Patriarch, based on a favorable report by his liturgical committee, provisionally approved Overbeck's plan. Western Rite Orthodox parishes and dioceses began to exist in Poland and Czechoslovakia in the 1890's through the 1920's with the support of the Russian Church. In 1911, the Antiochian Patriarchate received a parish in London using the Western Rite in English. The Patriarch of Alexandria also recognized the same parish. There was obviously a wide movement of the highest authorities of the Orthodox Church to establish viable Western Rite work in Europe and America in the opening decades of the 20th century. It was the cruel destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church by the Bolsheviks which brought a temporary end to this progress.

Immediately upon his conversion, Overbeck set to work convincing his friends of the feasibility of his ideas; soon there was a small group who shared his views. To give wider circulation to his ideas, Overbeck began to publish The Orthodox Catholic Review in 1867, and circulated a petition to the Russian Holy Synod to which he sought signatures. He felt that the Russian Church, as being more in the stream of European culture and being more "active and stirring" than her sister Churches, would be the logical part of the Church to approach. There was considerable Russophobia in the England of the 1860's, however, and on occasion Overbeck's work was accused as a Russian Propaganda by "enraged Anglican Intercommunionists."

By September, 1869, after securing 122 signatures to his petition from Anglicans and Roman Catholics, Dr. Overbeck forwarded it to the Holy Governing Synod at St. Petersburg. The Synod immediately formed a committee to study the question, appointing Overbeck 'a member. At Christmas of that same year he was called to the Russian capital to sit with the Synodal Committee. The latter body presented a favorable report to the Synod which in turn gave its approval to the principle of Western Orthodoxy and showed generally its avid interest in the success of Overbeck's scheme. The Synod then proceeded to the details and asked Dr. Overbeck to present his revision - of the Roman Mass for its approbation. The following Christmas Overbeck was again in St. Petersburg to discuss the liturgical draft in committee. Subsequently, the final text of the Mass was approved by the Synod - the Latin text being considered the authentic basis for all translations. For the time being, Overbeck proposed that the Western Church use the Eastern forms for the administration of the Sacraments and for the lesser offices, until the Western forms could be revised.The Mass as finally approved adhered closely to the Ordo Missae of the Roman Missal. Slight changes were made in the text for doctrinal reasons, the epiclesis was interpolated into the prayer: "Supplices te rogamus," and the elevation of the elements after the Words of Institution was abolished because it was introduced after the schism in line with Roman Catholic belief that the transubstantiation took place at that moment in the Mass. Immediately after the "Gloria in excelsis" the Trisagion was added in memory of the "union with the Orthodox Church." This was to be said twice in Greek and once in the vernacular.

Although the Russian Synod approved the principle, of Western Orthodoxy, it was hesitant, for some reason, to implement the scheme without the approval of the Eastern Patriarchs. It therefore took the steps necessary to get the views of the Patriarchs. Meanwhile, in 1870-71, the Old Catholic revolt against the Papacy began in Germany. Many Orthodox churchmen, among them Dr. Overbeck, saw in the Old Catholic movement the start of the restoration of Western Orthodoxy. Many of the Old Catholic leaders were known to Overbeck from his school and university days and he immediately communicated with them on the matter of unity and attended their congresses, as well as the Bonn Reunion Conferences sponsored by the Old Catholics. Nothing came of the Orthodox - Old Catholic rapprochement however. The Old Catholics found a closer rapport with the Anglicans than with the Orthodox and Dr. Overbeck lost hope of seeing them as the founders of Western Orthodoxy.

After the interlude with the Old Catholics, Overbeck resumed his negotiations with Orthodox Church leaders. The approval of the Eastern Patriarchs had not been forthcoming. The matter had bogged down somewhere, as could have been expected with the frequent changes of Patriarchs at Constantinople and the disturbed situation of the Balkans. The Bulgarian Question had come to a head in 1870-72 and war clouds were gathering for the Russo-Turkish War which commenced in 1877. Also Constantinople had apparently received protests against Overbeck from Britain. The British objected to his "proselytism" and the Patriarch very obligingly issued a prohibition against Orthodox "proselytism" in Great Britain, which Overbeck ignored.

Late in 1876 Overbeck addressed an appeal to the Patriarchs and Synods of the Church asking them to approve his scheme and to permit him to proceed in his work. Receiving no reply from the East, Overbeck went to Constantinople in person in August 1879 and consulted with Patriarch Joachim III who promised that his Synod would discuss the matter. He asked for the Western ritual to be submitted for approbation. A committee appointed at the Phanar to examine the scheme reported favorably and in 1882 the Greek Patriarch approved the scheme provisionally, upon the condition that the other Churches concur. A protest from the Synod of the Church of Greece halted the matter and it was subsequently dropped by the Patriarchate.

Not all Orthodox churchmen were as generous in their appraisal of Old Catholicism as Kireev. He was constantly battling in the press with those who held differing viewpoints on the Old Catholics. There were those in the Church who felt that all parts of the Church ought to possess not only the same doctrines but the same external manner of expressing those doctrines, i.e., follow the same rite. Like Fr. Alexis Maltsev, the translator of Orthodox liturgical books into German, they felt that it was unlawful and even criminal to desire to be Orthodox and yet follow a Western rite. Kireev's view, however, was different: "Unity of doctrine is a conditio sine qua non of the Unity of the Church, and consequently also of intercommunion in sacris. Wherever there is contradictory dogmatic teaching, there also must be separate Churches, which cannot be united. Churches may be altogether self-governed, may have different rites, different liturgies, independent hierarchies, and yet form but one Catholic Church, providing that as to dogma they are the same." Kireev corresponded with a small Old Catholic body in America headed by Joseph Rene Vilatte, later to become a notorious episcopus vagans. In the process of searching for episcopal orders Vilatte came into contact with Bishop Vladimir (Sokolovsky) of the Orthodox diocese of the Aleutian Islands, and Alaska (1888-91). Although having Swiss Old Catholic ordination, Vilatte was serving some Belgians in the Protestant Episcopal diocese of Fond du Lac (Wisconsin). He apparently used the Swiss Liturgy in French. In 1890 or early 1891 Vilatte seems to have been accepted provisionally into the Orthodox Church by Bishop Vladimir and considered an "Orthodox Old Catholic." The Old Catholics of Wisconsin, who had by this time severed their relations with the Pro testant Episcopal Church, were visited in the Spring of 1892 by Bishop Nicholas (Ziorov), the successor of Bishop Vladimir in America. Some correspondence was carried on between this group and members of the Russian Synod in St. Petersburg but in the end nothing came either of it or of the group's acceptance by Bishop Vladimir. Kireev approved of the group's avoidance of intercommunion with the Protestant Episcopalians but disparaged their lack of relations with the European Old Catholics. Vilatte, himself, managed to be consecrated in May, 1892 by Jacobite Bishops in Ceylon, India.

When, about 1890, a small movement towards Orthodoxy began in Prague among the Czechs, Kireev advised them to join the Old Catholics who were the Orthodox of the West. In 1898 Kireev published a Russian translation of the. Czech Old Catholic Liturgy which he praised as Orthodox. The Czech Mass was basically Roman with certain additions from the Byzantine rite such as the prayer "O Heavenly King," and the Trisagion, at the beginning of the Mass, a Little Ektenia at the Kyrie, an epiclesis after the Words of Institution, and a few other Byzantinisms. It was Kireev, too, who took up the cause of the Polish Mariavites, introducing them to the Old Catholics, and promoting their case in Russia where, through his efforts, their bishops received official state recognition. From the point of view of other Orthodox interested in extending the Church's mission, among them Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) -- later Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Kireev did more harm than good by diverting potential Western Orthodox groups into Old Catholicism.

Among other "Old Catholic" attempts at joining the Orthodox Church on the basis of a Western rite was the abortive endeavour of Bishop Arnold Harris Mathew, an Englishman with Old Catholic orders. After breaking with the Old Catholics of Utrecht and being placed under the greater excommunication by Rome for certain consecrations he performed which displeased the Vatican, Mathew tried to enter into some arrangement with the Orthodox Church. He turned, first, to the Holy Synod of the Russian Church where, after his background was investigated, he was refused. Undaunted, he then approached Metropolitan Gerrassimos (Messarah) of Beirut (of the Antiochian Patriarchate). The latter apparently received him into communion in 1911 on a provisional basis. [ed. note: in the document of reception issued by Metr. Gerassimos, there is no mention of a provisional or temporary or conditional basis for the reception. However, Mathew himself does not appear to have built further on this foundation.] That year Mathew be an calling his small group the Western Orthodox Church and in 1912 he started publishing The Torch, a monthly magazine advocating "reunion" with the Orthodox Church and the restoration of the Orthodox Church of the West. The action of Gerassimos, however, was not subsequently implemented and the matter was dropped.

The Old Catholic liturgical books came in for study by such scholars as Vladimir Kerensky who, in his book on the principles of Old Catholicism, discussed their liturgical reforms from the Orthodox viewpoint. Kerensky found that for the most part the Old Catholic reforms could not but be praised. Most of the reforms, he felt, were an attempt to free Old Catholicism from the later accretions brought into the liturgical books by medieval Roman Catholics. He saw the reforms as an attempt to bring the Old Catholic usages closer to the Orthodox. Kerensky disagreed with Overbeck's later evaluation of the Old Catholics, saying that Overbeck frequently accused the Old Catholics of those things of which they were faultless.

Another liturgist, A. I. Bulgakov, on the other hand, after extensive work on the Old Catholic liturgical reforms came to the conclusion that many of the reforms took Old Catholicism towards Protestantism. Among such reforms he mentions the deletion of the names of Saints in the prayers of the German Mass -- these, he said, were to be found in all the ancient rites of the West.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Church considered the question of relations with Western Christians so important it set up a permanent commission to deal with Old Catholic and Anglican matters. In 1904 this commission examined the American edition of the Book of Common Prayer (used in the Protestant Episcopal Church) at the request of the Holy Synod. The Synod had received an inquiry from Bishop Tikhon as to whether the Book of Common Prayer could be used by a formerly Protestant Episcopal parish which became Orthodox. What, asked Tikhon, in the BCP needed revision and correction to make it conform to Orthodox standards. The Synodal Commission very carefully studied the BCP and issued its report to the Synod. The commission found much that was objectionable in the BCP not by what the book said but in what it did not say. The BCP was composed, the commission reported, in such a fashion as to allow holders of entirely opposite theological positions to use it with a clear conscience. The book was found to, be too colorless and found that if it were to be used by newly-converted Orthodox Catholics much would have to be done to it in the way of insertion of essential Orthodox ideas and beliefs into the texts of the prayers and offices, e.g., prayers for the intercession of the Theotokos and Saints, prayers for the dead in the Burial Office, etc. Also the missing offices for the administration of Penance, Chrismation, and Unction would have to be composed. The Synodal Commission was more lenient with the BCP than many advanced Anglo-Catholics are themselves. The latter solve the problem of the latitudinarianism of the BCP by rejecting it entirely and using instead various English adaptations of the Roman Mass and offices.

A study of the liturgical books of the Church of England was undertaken by A. J. Rozhdestvensky who wrote numerous articles analyzing the British version of the BCP and comparing it to the Roman rite. Needless to say, he found that the British BCP had traversed a tortuous road from its mother Roman rite. Many of Rozhdestvensky's articles were reprinted in book form in 1908.

Most of the Orthodox students of the Western usages started with the Roman or other ancient rite to which they compared the various Old Catholic and Anglican reactions. Of the Roman Mass of the Fourth through the Seventh Centuries, the Russian liturgiologist A. Katansky, in his study of the Ancient National Liturgies of the West, said that despite all its significant differences from the Eastern rites, Eastern Christians had no misgivings about participating in it when present in a Roman rite church. Orthodox leaders generally came to the realization that the external form of the worship of God had been variformed in the early centuries and could be so now, providing the external ritual expressed a purely Orthodox inner doctrinal content. Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople, in his well-known encyclical of 1895, referred to this: "...the differences regarding the ritual of the sacred services and the hymns, or the sacred vestments, and the like, which matters, even though they still vary, as they did of old, do not in the least injure the substance and unity of the faith..."

Following World War I the map of Eastern and Central Europe was largely redrawn following the principle of the self-determination of nations. The intense nationalism of the period also had its effect upon ecclesiastical life with the resultant secession of nationalist anti-papal churchmen from the Roman Church. The "Los von Rom" movements demanded certain reforms in the government of the local Church, participation of laity in administration, use of the vernacular in the services, abolition of clerical celibacy, and the like. Such a movement in Czechoslovakia at the beginning appeared to be like an.other Old Catholic movement. Very soon, however, two tendencies appeared. There was the majority radical-rationalist faction and a minority conservative, pro-Orthodox group. The latter group, headed by the Serb-consecrated Bishop Gorazd Pavlik joined the Orthodox Church while the larger body degenerated into Unitarianism. In the short interim period before having its Church life stabilized the pro-Orthodox party as, well as the radically-orientated faction used the Roman rite in the vernacular. After 1921 the Orthodox group adopted the Byzantine rite which, with the strong Cyrillo-Methodian tradition among the Czechs was, apparently, not difficult to do. The larger body continued using the Roman rite but with the parting of the ways of the two groups in 1924 any question of a Western rite Orthodoxy in the new Republic of Czechoslovakia could no longer be put.

The post-World War I period in Poland produced similar anti-papal and nationalist unrest within the Roman Church there. In the new Republic of Poland some of the antiRoman revolts exhibited strong Polish "Messianism." Besides the Marlavites an Old Catholic Church of Poland (not in communion with Utrecht) was formed. These two bodies united after World War II. The Polish National Catholic Church of America also started a Mission in Poland after World War I. Its first parish was organized in Cracow in 1923 and by 1939 this body numbered about 50,000 members with seventyfive parishes.

Still another secession from Rome took place in Poland in 1923 a group which desired the Mass in the vernacular. Headed by several former Roman Catholic priests the new body called itself the Polish Catholic National Church. The movement was met with powerful opposition from Roman Catholic authorities. It was forbidden them to erect any dioceses, build churches, or even publicly hold services. The organization was not legalized which meant that anyone married by its priests was not recognized as such. Disputes with the police and adherents of this Church frequently led to the spilling of blood. The movement originated in the industrial areas around Cracow and Dabrowa and spread among the inhabitants of Western Galicia, and in the southern part of the Lublin Province.

The Polish Catholic National Church in 1926 sought admission to the Church and came into contact with Metropolitan Dionysius of Warsaw who headed the Orthodox Church in Poland at that time. Father Andrew Huszno, the leader of the Poles, was invited along with other members of the body to attend the session of the Holy Synod held in Warsaw in the Summer of 1926. Father Huszno's proposals for uniting with the Church while retaining the Western rite were accepted and the terms of unity were discussed. The Holy Synod then referred the question to Patriarch Basil III of Constantinople and to several outstanding Russian hierarchs outside of Russia for their opinions. Together with Huszno several thousand Poles, mostly from Dabrowa Gornicza in the Kielce Province, had presented the Synod with a petition to be received into the Church.

In August, 1926 the "Conditions of Union of the Polish Catholic National Church with the Polish Orthodox" were made public. Officially the united Church was to be called the "Polish Orthodox National Church" but domestically and privately it could be called the "Polish Catholic National Church." The PKKN (initials of the body in Polish) was to accept all the dogmas held by the "undivided" Church before the schism of 1054; it accepted, the Nicean Creed and the whole body of Orthodox canon law; the Seven Sacraments; Communion under both kinds; it was to retain both public and private Confession; it retained the Western Liturgy in Polish with the necessary changes to make it conform with Orthodox doctrine; it kept the whole Western rite in Polish where it did not disagree with the Orthodox Faith; it retained clerical celibacy only for the episcopate; it was to receive Holy Chrism and the Antimins from the Metropolitan of Warsaw. It was agreed that Fr. Huszno would be consecrated head of the PKKN by the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church in Poland. Meanwhile he was appointed administrator of the Church. These "Conditions" were accepted for the Poles by the Priests Andrew Huszno and Jan Pietruszka who signed them with three lay delegates to a congress called for this purpose.

In a ceremony in Polish in the Eastern rite, Bishop Alexis of Grodno, on 8 August 1926, received Huszno and Pietruska into Orthodoxy in Warsaw. Other clergy were received later. Thereafter Metropolitan Dionysius appointed Fr. Huszno pastor of the church of St. Michael the Archangel in Dabrowa Gornicza. The size of the Western rite Orthodox Church was never very large, having at most six parishes with five priests. The Western Orthodox seem to have suffered considerably during World War II emerging with only one church intact. The Western Orthodox parishes apparently enjoyed considerable self-government in administrative matters.

The Polish Western rite parishes followed the Roman rite with only small changes in the liturgical texts' where dogmatic differences with Orthodoxy were expressed, e.g., the Filioque was removed from the Creed and references to works of supererogation were effaced. The Western calendar-style was followed, including the celebration of Pascha. The Septuagint was adopted for the Old Testament and for quotations therefrom in the liturgical texts. An epiclesis was added in the Mass after the prayer: Supplices te rogamus. The entire rite was in Polish. Generally speaking, the Western rite Orthodox were quite conservative in the changes made in the rite, preserving it very carefully. However, they did not consider it as finally established and left it fluid in the texts, ritual, and customs.

Quote

Western Orthodoxy in France and Western Europe

The roots of present-day Western Orthodoxy in France may be said to lie in the formation of the Confraternity of St. Photius in Paris in 1925 with the approval of Metropolitan Eulogius, at that time reigning prelate of the Russian Church in Western Europe under the Patriarchate of Moscow. Within the Confraternity was a Commission which undertook a study of the Gallican and Roman rites. Active in that Commission was Eugraph E. Kovalevsky, who was to play a prominent role in the Western Orthodox movement. In 1928 the newly-organized French Orthodox parish in Paris petitioned Metropolitan Eulogius for permission to restore the Gallican Liturgy and use the new calendar. The matter was referred to the Patriarchate of Moscow with, apparently, no results of a positive nature. The Confraternity was convinced that the Western tradition had to be restored in France if French Orthodoxy was to be resuscitated.About this time (1929-30) a figure appeared out of the "inter-church expanse" who, like St. Simeon, was not to pronounce his Nunc Dimittis, until he beheld Western Orthodoxy restored in France. This was Bishop Louis-Charles Winnaert. Born in Dunkirk, in Northern France, in 1880, Winnaert studied at the Roman Catholic University of Lille. Ordained to the priesthood in 1905, he was appointed vicar of Aniche. As a Roman priest Winnaert endeavoured to place the liturgical life at the center of parish life. Later at his parish at Viroflay, during the war years of 1914-18, he celebrated the services of Holy Week as they were actually introduced forty years later by Pius XII. During the war he became a Modernist and, after some vaciIlation, left the Church of Rome in 1918 with a small following. In 1922 he formed the Liberal Catholic Church and was consecrated bishop by the theosophist James Ingall Wedgwood. Winnaert, apparently, had no sympathy for Wedgwood's theosophy and was merely seeking valid orders.By 1930 Winnaert seems to have changed his Modernist position. In that important year for him he married at that time, he changed the name of his Church to the "Evangelical Catholic Church." Belonging to his organization were small parishes in Paris, Rouen, Brussels, Holland, and Rome. In 1936 his followers totaled in the neighborhood of 1500 faithful. About 1930 Winnaert, seeking a firm dogmatic and canonical foundation for his Church, began to search for a rapprochement with the Orthodox Church. After being approached by Winnaert, Metropolitan Eulogius took an interest in him. A conference of professors from the St. Sergius Institute called by the Metropolitan to advise him was inconclusive in its results. The professors were generally indifferent to Winnaert's quest for unity. In 1931 came the rupture of Metropolitan Eulogius from the Moscow Patriarchate. Winnaert kept up his contacts with Eulogius, now under Constantinople, and, following the advice of the Metropolitan, he presented a petition to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1932. As usual there was no reply and Winnaert again wrote to the Phanar in 1934. In 1935 the convert Hieromonk Lev Gillet travelled to Istambul to plead Winnaert's case in person. Gillet held discussions with bishops empowered by Patriarch Photius who was ill, and Metropolitan Gennadius presented certain conditions orally for transmittal to Winnaert.

Although the Phanar accepted the idea of French Western Orthodoxy in principle, the discussions led to no practical result: Winnaert never received any official decree from Istambul nor even any confirmation of the oral terms presented by Gennadius. Finally losing all patience with the Greeks, Winnaert, in March, 1936, approached the Russian Church through its representatives in Paris. He asked the Confraternity of St. Photius to undertake the task of uniting his group of the Church by interceding with the Moscow Patriarchate. Wholeheartedly supporting Winnaert's case, the Confraternity sent its report along with a Memorandum from Winnaert to Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), Locum Tenens of the Patriarch and later himself Patriarch. The Confraternity emphasized the urgency of the matter owing to Winnaert's poor health. On 16 June 1936 the Moscow Patriarchate promulgated its now famous decree which restored. Western Orthodoxy in France with its proper rite on the one hand, and fixed the conditions, for receiving Winnaert and his community on the other. The Ukase was no doubt the work of Metropolitan Sergius himself and incorporated his ecclesiological and canonical erudition. The late Patriarch considered the resto ration of Western Orthodoxy in Western Europe one of the most important acts of his arch-pastoral life and it is truly remarkable that in the second half of the 1930's, when the Russian Church was at its lowest ebb physically and materially, its hierarchs displayed spiritual vigor enough to realize the consequences and importance of the restoration of Western Orthodoxy....

In January, 1953 there came a change in the jurisdictional adherence of a part of the Western Orthodox clergy and churches. At that time Fr. E. Kovalevsky, several priests, and two churches, besides several communities without regular services, withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow. They were provisionally received by the Constantinopolitan Exarchate in Western Europe and then led an independent existence until the Summer of 1960 when they were taken into the jurisdiction of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad headed by Metropolitan Anastasius. There are some quite capable men in this "Eglise Orthodoxe de France," among them Fr. Gabriel Bornand, a convert from Rome and a graduate of the Institute ordained in 1952. Fr. Bornand is the editor of the bi-monthly magazine Cahiers Saint-Irenee. There are at present ten or more churches and chapels in various parts of France and one in Brussels and the clergy also serve communities without churches in different places. Since the affiliation of the "Eglise Orthodoxe de France" with the Russian Synodal emigre Church, the diocesan, Archbishop John of Brussels, has ordained several candidates to Holy Orders. Fr. Kovalevsky has been elected bishop of the Church but his consecration h as not yet taken place.

Quote

Western Rite Edict of Metropolitan Antony

Metropolitan Antony (Bashir) of Syrian Antiochian Archdiocese, too, has often been approached by leadersand individuals of various bodies . He has always made it his policy thoroughly to investigate such seekers ofunity with the Church and has had occasion to refuse several. At the same time, however, in desiring to extend and implement Orthodoxy's mission in America, Metropolitan Antony realized that there were also "those outside of communion with the Church who were sincerely seeking the truth, who were desirous of becoming engrafted to the vine of Christ. After considerable meditation of the problem and taking into consideration the action of the Church elsewhere in the world, namely France, he came to the conclusion that the use of a Western rite in America could be of importance in facilitating the return to the Church of separated Western Christians in America. He turned for guidance to the late Patriarch Alexander III of Antioch who, in May, 1958, after consultation with the other Autocephalous Churches, gave an affirmative reply. Forwarding the Metropolitan an Arabic translation of the famous 1936 Ukase of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Patriarch of Antioch authorized Metropolitan Antony to "take the same action, leaving to your Orthodox, zeal and good judgment the right to work out the details in the local situations." Thereupon Metropolitan Antony issued his edict of August, 1958 in which he set forth general and provisional basis for establishing Western rite parishes within his Archdiocese. The Edict's stipulations were:

1. All converts to the Church must accept the full Orthodox doctrine of Faith.

2. Parishes and larger units received into the Archdiocese retain the use of all Western rites, devotions, and customs which "are not contrary to the Orthodox Faith and are logically derived from a Western usage" antedating the Schism of 1054.

3. All individual converts must be integrated into parochial life; there can be no individual converts to the Western rite unless to an established parish.

4. The manner of reception of prospective Western rite groups as well as to whatever concerns the rite itself, the approval of texts, etc., shall be handled by a special Commission appointed by the Archbishop.

5. There can be no transference from one rite to another without special dispensation. Such dispensations shall be granted only to: (a) the faithful of one rite who permanently dwell in the parochial limits of another rite and have no church of their own rite to attend; (b) to Priests appointed for specific is missionary duties; otherwise there shall be no "bi-ritual" privileges for any cleric of the Archdiocese; and (c) to women who marry men of another rite automatically join the husband's rite.

6. Church schools in Western rite Orthodox parishes shall conform to the same Christian Education Program of the Archdiocese in teaching materials, etc. as the Eastern rite parishes' All candidates for the clergy must conform to the same standards regardless of rite; they must be graduates of St. Vladimir's Seminary.

7. Western rite parishes and clergy are subject to the canons of the Orthodox Church and the laws of the Archdiocese.The stipulation in this edict, in §5, which forbids transference from one rite to another probably appears in Western rite legislation for the first time. Also, except for temporary missions, all priests are denied "bi-ritual" privileges and are "forbidden to use the dress, Vestments, rites, ceremonies of a Rite other than own." The legislation of §5 from the quarter-century practice of Western Orthodoxy in France which was blessed by Patriarch Sergius in his 1936 Ukase. It probably differs from the ancient ancient custom of the Church.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ozgeorge have any Western-rite come forward in Australia seeking to be under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Stylianos?

No. Archbishop Stylianos and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia are under the jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate which has no Western Rite parishes.

Is that because the Oecumenical Patriarch does not endorse the notion of a Western-rite? If so why not? Is it something that the EC would wish reversed if it could be? That I imagine would be contested and difficult to achieve unless consensus is achieved.

I'm not sure that we can say that the Oecumenical Patriarchate does not endorse the notion of a Western Rite since it had Churches and monasteries with "Western" Rites including a Benedictine Monastery on Mount Athos with a 300 year tradition up until the 13th Century (Amalfion).To my knowledge the Synod of the Oecumenical Patriarchate has said nothing officially about the current Western Rite. Some Bishops under it's jurisdiction have addressed issues in their diocese in the past giving guidelines to its clergy and laity (as we have seen above in the case of Bishop Anthony of Denver in 1995), but the modern Western Rite itself is a matter for the Antiochian and Moscow Patriarchates who introduced them in their respective jurisdictions without consultation with the rest of the Church.

Wrong.

Oh. OK. Perhaps you could name the heirarchs of Orthodox Churches other than Antioch and the Russians which approved the Western Rite. Lots of people "make proposals"- doesn't mean they get a response or an approval of it. And also please explain why the Typica which Antioch and Moscow adopt should be of concern to Constantinople? Are the Violakes revisions of the Typicon of The Great Church of Christ of concern to other jurisdictions than Constantinople?

« Last Edit: January 24, 2011, 01:15:14 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Ozgeorge have any Western-rite come forward in Australia seeking to be under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Stylianos?

No. Archbishop Stylianos and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia are under the jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate which has no Western Rite parishes.

Is that because the Oecumenical Patriarch does not endorse the notion of a Western-rite? If so why not? Is it something that the EC would wish reversed if it could be? That I imagine would be contested and difficult to achieve unless consensus is achieved.

I'm not sure that we can say that the Oecumenical Patriarchate does not endorse the notion of a Western Rite since it had Churches and monasteries with "Western" Rites including a Benedictine Monastery on Mount Athos with a 300 year tradition up until the 13th Century (Amalfion).To my knowledge the Synod of the Oecumenical Patriarchate has said nothing officially about the current Western Rite. Some Bishops under it's jurisdiction have addressed issues in their diocese in the past giving guidelines to its clergy and laity (as we have seen above in the case of Bishop Anthony of Denver in 1995), but the modern Western Rite itself is a matter for the Antiochian and Moscow Patriarchates who introduced them in their respective jurisdictions without consultation with the rest of the Church.

Then is this a view of the GOA/EC that the WR is OK if they endorse it also, or is it not OK and that is why they have not endorsed it. With respect Amalfion is over 700 years ago - a lot of water under the bridge.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Ozgeorge have any Western-rite come forward in Australia seeking to be under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Stylianos?

No. Archbishop Stylianos and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia are under the jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate which has no Western Rite parishes.

Is that because the Oecumenical Patriarch does not endorse the notion of a Western-rite? If so why not? Is it something that the EC would wish reversed if it could be? That I imagine would be contested and difficult to achieve unless consensus is achieved.

I'm not sure that we can say that the Oecumenical Patriarchate does not endorse the notion of a Western Rite since it had Churches and monasteries with "Western" Rites including a Benedictine Monastery on Mount Athos with a 300 year tradition up until the 13th Century (Amalfion).To my knowledge the Synod of the Oecumenical Patriarchate has said nothing officially about the current Western Rite. Some Bishops under it's jurisdiction have addressed issues in their diocese in the past giving guidelines to its clergy and laity (as we have seen above in the case of Bishop Anthony of Denver in 1995), but the modern Western Rite itself is a matter for the Antiochian and Moscow Patriarchates who introduced them in their respective jurisdictions without consultation with the rest of the Church.

Then is this a view of the GOA/EC that the WR is OK if they endorse it also, or is it not OK and that is why they have not endorsed it.

The Oecumenical Patriarchate is not a Papacy to endorse or not endorse the liturgical practices of other Autocephalous Churches- it simply has not endorsed the Western Rite for use in it's own jurisdiction at present. The reasons for this are many (and ethnocentricism or cultural chauvenism isn't one of them). There are varied are liturgical practices in the Orthodox Church which unique to certain parts of the world and have been for centuries. The Moliben is a Slavic service, yet there are Churches in the EP which celebrate it (eg in the Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition, Panteleimon in Mount Athos etc).At the moment, the way it's set up is that the Western Rite can only be viewed as alternative Liturgies set up in ROCOR and Antioch. No one has said they are not "Canonical". However, the Revised Julian Calendar is also "Canonical", but not every diocese in the Church uses it. The Church of Finland uses the Gregorian date for Pascha, which no other Orthodox Church uses, but it doesn't mean that we are not in Communion.

With respect Amalfion is over 700 years ago - a lot of water under the bridge.

Exactly, which is one of the many reasons the EP is treading carefully with the Western Rite, i.e., having been a broken tradition for centuries. Another major concern is the possibility that the WRO be viewed as the kind of "Unia" which the Oecumenical Patriarchate made quite clear at the Balamand Agreement with the RC Church that it does not view them as a path to reunification.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Ozgeorge have any Western-rite come forward in Australia seeking to be under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Stylianos?

No. Archbishop Stylianos and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia are under the jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate which has no Western Rite parishes.

Is that because the Oecumenical Patriarch does not endorse the notion of a Western-rite? If so why not? Is it something that the EC would wish reversed if it could be? That I imagine would be contested and difficult to achieve unless consensus is achieved.

I'm not sure that we can say that the Oecumenical Patriarchate does not endorse the notion of a Western Rite since it had Churches and monasteries with "Western" Rites including a Benedictine Monastery on Mount Athos with a 300 year tradition up until the 13th Century (Amalfion).To my knowledge the Synod of the Oecumenical Patriarchate has said nothing officially about the current Western Rite. Some Bishops under it's jurisdiction have addressed issues in their diocese in the past giving guidelines to its clergy and laity (as we have seen above in the case of Bishop Anthony of Denver in 1995), but the modern Western Rite itself is a matter for the Antiochian and Moscow Patriarchates who introduced them in their respective jurisdictions without consultation with the rest of the Church.

Wrong.

Oh. OK. Perhaps you could name the heirarchs of Orthodox Churches other than Antioch and the Russians which approved the Western Rite. Lots of people "make proposals"- doesn't mean they get a response or an approval of it.

you didn't say "response or approval." You accused Antioch and Moscow of acting "without consultation with the rest of the Church." Qui tacet consentit.

The names, btw, are mentioned throughout the long citations, e.g. EP Ioakim III, who backed down at the protest of the CoG (even then it seemed the same set up as today). But then, the Phanar backed down for the Eastern rite in the West as well:

Quote

THE RELATIONS OF THE GREEK TO THE ENGLISH CHURCH.Sir,—Permit me, in behalf the Anglo-Continental Society, to send to you for publication the following most important document which has just issued from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It speaks for itself, and needs no explanation to those acquainted with the circumstances of the case. We may be allowed to express our deep thankfulness that what threatened to become a dangerous schism and a running sore has been overruled so as to bring about the first authoritative recognition of the Anglican Church, as a sister Church, that has ever proceeded, in so formal a manner, from the see of Constantinople, and a distinct repudiation of the arrogant and| uncatholic policy of “I am, and there is none beside me,” which Rome persistently and consistently acts on towards us. The Old Catholic Movement in the West and this acceptance in the East of our ideas with respect to the nature and constituent parts of the Catholic Church may well give courage to those who look for intercommunion among Christians on the basis of Scriptural truths and primitive consent.I believe that we very much owe this happytermination of the Hatherly’ affair to the wisdom, moderation, and zeal of our excellent representative in Constantinople—the Rev, C. G. Curtis, to whom I am indebted for the following documents. (1 Mr. Hatherly, it will be remembered, is an Englishman who went to Constantinople to be ordained to the chaplaincy of a few Greeks at Wolverhampton, and whose Greek pedilections had led him on to desire, like Dr. Overbeck, the formation of a distinct “Western Orthodox Church,” to which he would get proselytes, from the Anglican Church as from other bodies.)I.—Letter of the Grand Protosyncelus of the Patriarch of Constantinople to Stephen Hatherly :—“Dorolheus Euelpides, Grand Protosyncelus of the Patriarchal (Ecumenical throne in Constantinople, to Stephen Hatherly, appointed Priest over the Orthodox Church in Wolverhampton, England, peace from God and brotherly greeting in Christ. “Among many other difficulties with which the Orthodox Church is daily contending is reckoned, your dear reverence well knows, that proselytism among some of her children which is being always carried on by missionaries of the West.“If these Missionaries had been really impelled by a true zeal for the Lord, they would have had before them a wide field for their energy in Asia, and especially in Africa and other parts, where ‘ Christ is not yet preached,’ and not among the pious sons of the Orthodox Church, whose fathers were the first to receive the Gospel of Christ from the witnesses of the Word, and then to cultivate and impart it to all other nations among which are numbered even those from which at the present day these Missionaries present themselves self-authorized teachers, pursuing the work of proselytism among the faithful, forgetting the resolve of the Apostle of the Gentiles who ‘strove to preach the Gospel not where Christ was named, lest he should build upon another man’s foundation, but, as it is written, to whom He was not spoken of they shall see, and they that have not heard shall understand’ (Rom. xv. 20). Through such conduct of theirs they revive in themselves the work of those concerning whom the Apostle, writing to the Philippians (i. 15) said, (and the Orthodox Church is justified in repeating his words)—’ Some indeed preach Christ of envy and strife, and some of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds.’“The mother Church, beholding the disastrous consequences of such proselytism with grief, laments, like another Rachel, the destruction of her children, and therefore she regards it as opposed to the Gospel, and not as promoting the glory of the Lord’s Name—nor peace and love, but as sowing discord and hatred between Christian Churches.“And for this cause, following the noble aim of the Apostle, she has always been averse from that practice, never hunting for proselytes among the members of another Church, and she appeals to the truth of history on her behalf to show that she has always faithfully maintained this principle.Of this principle your reverence is requested and ecclesiastically enjoined to become the official ppponent in the presence of the English brethren, instructing as becomes you the little Orthodox flock over which you have been called and appointed by the Church to be priest, but never, no, not in mind, assuming to proselytise any one single member of the Anglican Church, which has signally exhibited of late towards our Orthodox Church so many proofs of sisterly love and sympathy. Our fervent desire is not that we should receive into the bosom of our Church five or possibly ten members of tlie Anglican or any other Church, but that, differences being removed through care and previous labour undertaken in the spirit of meekness, the unity of the Churches may follow, so that with one mouth and with one heart glorifying in the same temples the great Chief Shepherd, our Lord and God, we may in common impart the light of the knowledge of God to nations that are sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, and that united praise of all that are on the earth may be borne up to the only-begotten Son and Word of God, Who is at the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty. For this does the Church entreat night and day, continually praying ‘for the union of all.’“Under this banner of our Church, into the ranks of whose ministry you have been called, may your Reverence fight the good fight in Christian Great Britain, proving yourself an example and a teacher of a cause, not of dismemberment and hatred, but of union and love. Let us who have been called to be ministers of the Church be foremost in practising this, conducting ourselves according to it in all our actions and after the Apostle’s example, praying ‘that the love of believers may abound yet more.and more in knowledge and in all judgment, that they may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousnsss which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God’ (Phil. i. 9—12).“Assuring your Reverence of the prayers and blessings of our most pious Father and Patriarch, by whose command I have written the above, I offer the brotherly greeting in Christ.—Your reverence’s brother in Christ, “+ The Grand Protosyncelus, D. Euelpides. “The Patriarchate, Feb. 27, 1873.”II.—Article in the official Neologus of Constantinople, 29th April, 1873, commenting on the above letter :—“A bright contrast to the proselytising spirit of some ministers of the Christian religion, and to their constant eagerness to bring over to their own dogma other believers in the Gospel, is presented by the conduct of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which seeks and desires nothing but union in Christ, and that by brotherly and peaceful approximation, and not by ensnaring consciences through any means whatever, as is the practice of others.“Our Church has very lately given a clear proof that this is her rule of conduct by proclaiming it officially in a letter sent by the Grand Protosyncelus, and by command of his Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch,to the Rev. Stephen Hatherly, an Orthodox Priest in Great Britain, for his guidance as to his intercourse with the English community. In this letter the Grand Protosyncelus, interpreting the mind of the Church, first denounces that proselytism which is carried on by some in the East among the Christians, and which, instead of the peace and love taught by the Gospel, rather sows the seed of strife and division; and so proves that the Orthodox Church, justly hating such consequences, has always discountenanced inclination to proselytism. Accordingly, he enjoins the Rev. priest, Mr. Stephen Hatherly, as her minister, to content himself with instructing and feeding the small Orthodox flock of which he has been appointed spiritual father, but to abstain from even the idea of proselytising a few members of the Anglican Church with which the great Church continues in good and sisterly relations. This representation of the Orthodox Church made by the Grand Protosyncelus the (Ecumenical Patriarch, bears witness to her feelings towards all other Christian Churches and to the lofty principle by which she is guided in her manner of dealing with Christians of other confessions, while she keeps in view rather the more general and truer union of the Churches for which, too, she never ceases to pray, than partial and often scandalous conversions.”The language of the official organ of the Church of Constantinople is the more remarkable because two years ago, in reply to Mr. Curtis’s protest against Mr. Hatherly’s ordination, it admitted letters justifying Orthodox proselytism in England on the ground of the heterodoxy of the English Church—(see Report of the Anglo-Continental Society, 1871). This position is now formally abandoned.Frederick Meyrick.The Colonial Church chronicle, and missionary journal. July 1847-Dec. 1874http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA465&dq=Stephen+Hatherly+Orthodox&id=CigEAAAAQAAJ#v=onepage&q=Stephen%20Hatherly%20Orthodox&f=false

Are the Violakes revisions of the Typicon of The Great Church of Christ of concern to other jurisdictions than Constantinople?

Yes.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ozgeorge have any Western-rite come forward in Australia seeking to be under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Stylianos?

No. Archbishop Stylianos and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia are under the jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate which has no Western Rite parishes.

Is that because the Oecumenical Patriarch does not endorse the notion of a Western-rite? If so why not? Is it something that the EC would wish reversed if it could be? That I imagine would be contested and difficult to achieve unless consensus is achieved.

I'm not sure that we can say that the Oecumenical Patriarchate does not endorse the notion of a Western Rite since it had Churches and monasteries with "Western" Rites including a Benedictine Monastery on Mount Athos with a 300 year tradition up until the 13th Century (Amalfion).To my knowledge the Synod of the Oecumenical Patriarchate has said nothing officially about the current Western Rite. Some Bishops under it's jurisdiction have addressed issues in their diocese in the past giving guidelines to its clergy and laity (as we have seen above in the case of Bishop Anthony of Denver in 1995), but the modern Western Rite itself is a matter for the Antiochian and Moscow Patriarchates who introduced them in their respective jurisdictions without consultation with the rest of the Church.

Wrong.

Oh. OK. Perhaps you could name the heirarchs of Orthodox Churches other than Antioch and the Russians which approved the Western Rite. Lots of people "make proposals"- doesn't mean they get a response or an approval of it.

you didn't say "response or approval." You accused Antioch and Moscow of acting "without consultation with the rest of the Church." Qui tacet consentit.

I'm not "accusing" Moscow and Antioch of anything. I simply stated the fact that they both have made own decisions about practices in their own jurisdictions. If they want to interpret silence as approval, thats also their choice (although it doesn't make it true). There's no need for you to get hostile about it. Antioch and Moscow are doing precisely what they want- so where's the problem for you?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

However, the Revised Julian Calendar is also "Canonical", but not every diocese in the Church uses it. The Church of Finland uses the Gregorian date for Pascha, which no other Orthodox Church uses, but it doesn't mean that we are not in Communion.

The decision to adopt the New calendar/'Revised' Julian Calendar must rank as one of the most foolish decisions of the EC with respect to those who value this innovation. At least ROCOR's WR are using the Julian Calendar! Surely given that the majority of Orthodox in the world are still using the Church's Julian Calendar, that it is time to admit that the decision of the EC in the 1920's was inappropriate - even though canonical?

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Are the Violakes revisions of the Typicon of The Great Church of Christ of concern to other jurisdictions than Constantinople?

Yes.

Well then, lets move towards a Synod to talk about it. We could have some Preconcilliar meetings leading up to it, perhaps establish some Regional Assemblies of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in areas of the world where jurisdictions overlap....

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Are the Violakes revisions of the Typicon of The Great Church of Christ of concern to other jurisdictions than Constantinople?

Yes.

Well then, lets move towards a Synod to talk about it. We could have some Preconcilliar meetings leading up to it, perhaps establish some Regional Assemblies of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in areas of the world where jurisdictions overlap....

Like Northern Greece?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Are the Violakes revisions of the Typicon of The Great Church of Christ of concern to other jurisdictions than Constantinople?

Yes.

Well then, lets move towards a Synod to talk about it. We could have some Preconcilliar meetings leading up to it, perhaps establish some Regional Assemblies of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in areas of the world where jurisdictions overlap....

Are the Violakes revisions of the Typicon of The Great Church of Christ of concern to other jurisdictions than Constantinople?

Yes.

Well then, lets move towards a Synod to talk about it. We could have some Preconcilliar meetings leading up to it, perhaps establish some Regional Assemblies of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in areas of the world where jurisdictions overlap....

Are the Violakes revisions of the Typicon of The Great Church of Christ of concern to other jurisdictions than Constantinople?

Yes.

Well then, lets move towards a Synod to talk about it. We could have some Preconcilliar meetings leading up to it, perhaps establish some Regional Assemblies of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in areas of the world where jurisdictions overlap....

Like Northern Greece?

How is this related to the WR or even on the topic?

It's not, it's just great!

It's fun ... although I'm not as enamored with inter-autocephalous-Church-bickering as I used to be.

Just came across this response of the EP to the movement that ended up as the WRO:

Quote

The efforts made in England and America for bringing about an intercommunion between the Anglican and the Greek Churches, as well as those Episcopal bodies in general which hold the Apostolio succession, met with some responses among the members of the latter. (See Anglican Church.) In Paris, a paper has been established, entitled Union Chretienne, which is edited by a French priest of Gallican sentiments, Abbe Guettee, and a priest- of the Russian Church, Joseph Vasscheff, and which is devoted to the advocacy of the Eastern Churches and the Episcopal bodies of Western Europe, including, in particular, such members of the Catholio Church as repudiate the belief in the supremacy of the Pope. The following letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople and the "Synod of the OEcumenical Throne" explains the sentiments animating the bishops:

Joachim, by the grace of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and (Ecumenical Patriarch:

Most reverend Arch-Priest Joseph Vasscheff, most pious and honorable Abbe Guettee, whose learning's so widely useful, and who represent the editors' staff of L'Union Chretienne, our well-beloved and valued sons in the Lord.

The grace, the peace, and the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

We are not ignorant, well-beloved sons, of the courageous and useful works of the editors of V Union, for the integrity of the fuith of Christ: on the contrary, we have long praised it, and bestowed our blessing upon it, when we received with ioy the delightful letter of your piety, together with the precious collection of your journal. Thus, having more perfectly conceived your aim, we rendered thanks to God, "who willeth that all should be in union, and giveth mighty words to them that preach it." We regard, indeed, as the work of God, not only a salutary thought which has inspired a labor so useful to the body of the Church, but also the perfect concord which exists between you, and which enables you to labor as brothers in Jesus Christ. The meritorious end which you pursue with sincerity, the legitimate means which vou employ, the sure guides which you follow, the solid' bases on which you lean, the marvellous sweetness of your words, which enters the ears not as the clap of thunder, but as the light breeze which gently penetrates souls. It is thus that your words are worthy of the God whose cause they assert, and whose service finds its perfection not by vehement speech, but by sweetness. You will receive, without doubt, well beloved sons, the recompense from God of the pious works which you have undertaken for so holy a cause.

As to our Orthodox Church of the East, she has always grieved for the alienation of her western sisters, once so venerable; and more especially ancient Rome. Yet she consoles herself by consciousness of her innocence, for she did not provoke at first, any more than since she has perpetuated or strengthened the division. Nay, she has never ceased to offer with tears fervent prayers to her God and Saviour who maketh of two one, breaking down the middle wall of separation between them, that He may bring all Churches into one unity, giving them sameness of faith and the communion of the Holy Ghost. And that she may cause Him to hear her, she shows Him the marks of her martyrdom, and the wounds which she bas through so many ages received on account of her Catholic Orthodoxy from those who envy her, who trouble het tranquillity and her peaceful life in Jesus Christ.

For these causes: our humility and the holy synod of most holy metropolitans, our brothers and coadjutors in the Holy Ghost, having been informed, especially by your letter, of the divine zeal which inunmes you for the desired union of the churches, are filled with spiritual joy; we crown your holy work with the most just praises, we pour forth for you the most ardent prayers, and we bestow on you with our whole heart, on you and on your fellow laborers, our fullest benediction, patriarchal and synodal. And as we have seen with joy, in the letter of your piety, one western and one eastern priest united in the same love for the truth, joining their names as brethren, so may we, one day, by the grace of that Cod, whose judgment and mercies are infinite, behold the sister Churches of East and West embracing each other with sincerity and truth in the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace, to the end that we may be one body, and only one, in Jesus Christ, to the glory of the Father, the Soo, and the Holy Ghost, the most Holy and Undivided Trinity.

His grace and benediction be with you. Interdictum the 5th, August 23d, 1862.

The Archbishop of Constantinople, who blesseth you in Jesus Christ. Paisius, Metropolitan of Cassarea, who blesseth you in Jesus Christ.Paisius, of Kphesus, who blesseth you in Jesus Christ Methodius, Vicar-General of Carpathos, who blessethyours in Jesus Christ Stephen, Metropolitan of Larissa, who blesseth you in Jesus Christ. Sophronines of Arta, who blesseth you in Jesus Christ. Chrysanthus of Smyrna, "" "" Meletius of Mitylenc, "" "" Dorotheus of Demetrius, "" "" Dionysius of Melenia, "" " ** Meletius of Rhascoprescene,"" "" Anthemus of Belgrade, "" "" Agapeus of Grebenua, "" ""

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I am Roman Catholic strongly considering Orthodoxy. It seems to me that reading this website, the Church is terribly fractured, nontheless I want to make a sound decision. I like the Eastern liturgy, but really do not want to get used to so much Greek. I grew up with latin mass, but have no strong desire to learn Greek. In my opinion one of the only good things to come out of VaticanII was mass in the vernacular. I would like to convert, but would feel more at home in a Western Rite Liturgy. Is there a way to make certain if Antiochan Western rite parishes are in communion with the Greek Orthodox which I would consider the Gold Standard for historical Orhodoxy(please no long emails this is my opinion). I am an Engineer not a philosopher, so too much argument makes my head hurt. I live in Pasadena texas, so is there a church near me that is 75% or more english liturgy(eastern or western). I have taken instructions and would like to move on to the next step. Just trying to decide.

I am Roman Catholic strongly considering Orthodoxy. It seems to me that reading this website, the Church is terribly fractured, nontheless I want to make a sound decision. I like the Eastern liturgy, but really do not want to get used to so much Greek. I grew up with latin mass, but have no strong desire to learn Greek. In my opinion one of the only good things to come out of VaticanII was mass in the vernacular. I would like to convert, but would feel more at home in a Western Rite Liturgy. Is there a way to make certain if Antiochan Western rite parishes are in communion with the Greek Orthodox which I would consider the Gold Standard for historical Orhodoxy(please no long emails this is my opinion). I am an Engineer not a philosopher, so too much argument makes my head hurt. I live in Pasadena texas, so is there a church near me that is 75% or more english liturgy(eastern or western). I have taken instructions and would like to move on to the next step. Just trying to decide.

From Antiochian.org, "The Western Rite is a ministry of the Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America, and in full canonical communion and unity of purpose with the several Orthodox jurisdictions of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."

The Greek Orthodox Church is in SCOBA and thus, all Antiochian parishes of the Western Rite are in full canonical communion with them.

Thank you. This is a very clearcut answer. I now have several options to explore. I will be Orthodox as soon as I receive further instruction and am judged ready. This website is very interesting although sometimes confusing

I am Roman Catholic strongly considering Orthodoxy. It seems to me that reading this website, the Church is terribly fractured, nontheless I want to make a sound decision. I like the Eastern liturgy, but really do not want to get used to so much Greek. I grew up with latin mass, but have no strong desire to learn Greek. In my opinion one of the only good things to come out of VaticanII was mass in the vernacular. I would like to convert, but would feel more at home in a Western Rite Liturgy. Is there a way to make certain if Antiochan Western rite parishes are in communion with the Greek Orthodox which I would consider the Gold Standard for historical Orhodoxy(please no long emails this is my opinion). I am an Engineer not a philosopher, so too much argument makes my head hurt. I live in Pasadena texas, so is there a church near me that is 75% or more english liturgy(eastern or western). I have taken instructions and would like to move on to the next step. Just trying to decide.

From Antiochian.org, "The Western Rite is a ministry of the Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America, and in full canonical communion and unity of purpose with the several Orthodox jurisdictions of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."

The Greek Orthodox Church is in SCOBA and thus, all Antiochian parishes of the Western Rite are in full canonical communion with them.

I am Roman Catholic strongly considering Orthodoxy. It seems to me that reading this website, the Church is terribly fractured, nontheless I want to make a sound decision. I like the Eastern liturgy, but really do not want to get used to so much Greek. I grew up with latin mass, but have no strong desire to learn Greek. In my opinion one of the only good things to come out of VaticanII was mass in the vernacular. I would like to convert, but would feel more at home in a Western Rite Liturgy. Is there a way to make certain if Antiochan Western rite parishes are in communion with the Greek Orthodox which I would consider the Gold Standard for historical Orhodoxy(please no long emails this is my opinion). I am an Engineer not a philosopher, so too much argument makes my head hurt. I live in Pasadena texas, so is there a church near me that is 75% or more english liturgy(eastern or western). I have taken instructions and would like to move on to the next step. Just trying to decide.

The Greek Orthodox Metropolitinate of San Francisco has been the most hostile, the Greek Metropoolitinate of Denver among the most accepting and even supportive, of the WRO. Yet the Greek bishops of SF have always been in communion with Met. Isaiah of Denver (Many Years!). And even SF has never barred the WRO from communion, and would let WRO priests concelebrate with its priests if the WRO vest in Eastern Vestments. The bishops commemorated by the WRO are in full communion with the bishops who hate the WRO, and they are all in the same Episcopal Assembly set up by the Greek Archbishop under the Greek Ecumenical Patriarch.

So it comes down to no more than the difference between those Greek bishops who allow a lot of English, and, for instance, Met. Soterios of Toronto, who insists on everything in Greek.

There has been no schism nor breach of Communion between Antioch and the Greek Church for a century (the Greeks didn't like it when the Arab Antiochians became masters of their own house, and not the Phanar's colony). The WRO is no exception to that: they are in full communion with the canonical Greeks and the rest of the canonical Orthodox.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth